My concern is that an accelerated vesting schedule for one founder versus the other only matters in one particular case and that case is a bad one: the founder with accelerated equity decides to cease working and become a passive owner.<p>In any other circumstance, the &quot;earlier&quot; founder and the &quot;later&quot; founder have aligned interests in regard to equity independent of vesting schedule. An &quot;earlier&quot; founder insistent on more aggressive vesting may be symptomatic of an underlying poor relationship.<p>That&#x27;s not to say that there couldn&#x27;t be circumstances in which two founders <i>naturally</i> have different vesting schedules, e.g. the &quot;earlier&quot; founder incorporated the final entity prior to the &quot;later&quot; founder&#x27;s involvement. But from a formal standpoint, if both founders are there the day of incorporation, then that&#x27;s where the clock starts.