以下是内容的中文翻译： Michael Seibull 探讨了联合创始人的股权分配和分手问题，特别是针对寻求风险投资、且尚未达到产品市场匹配 (product market fit) 的科技/软件初创公司。他强调了激励创始团队的重要性，尤其是在充满挑战的早期阶段。 核心建议是对联合创始人股权分配要慷慨，这与那些过度分析贡献和技能的“平庸”创始人形成了鲜明对比。目标是激励创始人在成功充满不确定性时努力工作。他建议更接近于平等的股权分配，因为这有助于强大的创始人保持动力。 归属 (Vesting) 和悬崖条款 (Cliffs) 对于所有创始人来说都是必不可少的工具。归属制度将股权分配到一段时间内（通常为四年），而悬崖条款要求至少工作一段时间（通常为一年）才能获得任何股权。这些条款在出现不可预见的情况时保护公司的资本结构，例如创始人因个人原因、表现不佳或意见分歧而离开。归属和悬崖条款是最佳实践，不应被忽视。 联合创始人必须对初始的 MVP (Minimum Viable Product，最小可行产品) 构建和客户互动至关重要。慷慨地分配股权有助于识别和移除那些更适合担任雇员而非创始人的非必要团队成员。联合创始人的头衔不应轻易授予。股权是关于激励人们实现未来的里程碑，而不是奖励他们已经完成的工作。CEO 必须有权解雇表现不佳的创始人，以保持责任感。讨论潜在的分手情景是负责任的做法。 对于产品市场匹配之前的联合创始人分手，YC (Y Combinator) 指南建议对于在一年悬崖期之前离开的人，给予象征性的股权数量（0.5% - 2%）。在悬崖期之后但在产品市场匹配之前，离开的创始人不应保留超过公司 5% 的股权。这确保剩余的创始人和新员工能够得到充分的激励，以推动公司前进。对于被解雇的创始人，遣散费是合理的（一到三个月），但对于自愿离开的人，通常没有遣散费。所有离开的创始人都应辞去董事会职务，签署一份放弃声明，并将代理投票权授予剩余的创始人。 不均衡股权分配的常见错误推理通常源于短视思维。“我的联合创始人同意了”是不够的；CEO 必须考虑长期的激励，尤其是在困难时期。认为拥有原始想法的人应该获得更多股权的谬论是错误的；执行才是最重要的。几个月的领先优势并不能证明股权上的巨大差异是合理的。对于那些在融资或发布后加入的创始人来说，情况也是如此：科技创业是一个长期的项目，大部分工作仍在进行中。 薪水应与股权区分开来；薪水是生存的手段，而股权是激励高绩效和潜在低于市场水平薪酬的动力。避免将某人的薪酬需求与股权分配联系起来。 一般不鼓励基于绩效的股权，因为早期的目标通常是不确定的，并且容易发生调整。股权分配不需要创新；最佳实践的存在是有原因的。兼职创始人很少合适，不应在联合创始人股权等式中考虑。动态股权协议，具有不断变化的条款，过于复杂，与清晰的股权份额结合归属和悬崖条款相比，激励性较差。 即使一个创始人在公司工作的时间更长，并且在长期内贡献更多，慷慨的初始股权分配仍然至关重要。早期的联合创始人提供了至关重要的初始能量和专业知识，使公司得以起步。没有他们，公司可能永远无法充分发挥其潜力。最终，联合创始人股权是最大限度地提高动力并增加构建成功产品机会的工具。

Michael Seibull discusses co-founder equity splits and breakups, specifically for tech/software startups aiming for VC funding, focusing on pre-product market fit companies. He emphasizes the importance of motivating the founding team, especially during the challenging early years. The core advice is to be generous with co-founder equity, a stark contrast to the "midwit" founder who overanalyzes contributions and skillsets. The goal is to incentivize founders to work tirelessly when success is uncertain. He suggests closer to equal equity splits as it helps strong founders stay motivated. Vesting and cliffs are essential tools for all founders. Vesting distributes equity over time (typically four years), while a cliff requires a minimum tenure (usually one year) to earn any equity. These protect the company's cap table in case of unforeseen circumstances, such as a founder leaving due to personal reasons, non-performance, or disagreements. Vesting and cliffs are a best practice and should not be overlooked. Co-founders must be essential to the initial MVP build and customer interaction. Giving generous equity aids in identifying and removing non-essential team members who might be better suited as employees. The co-founder title shouldn't be handed out lightly. The equity is about motivating people to achieve future milestones rather than rewarding them for the work they have done so far. The CEO must have the authority to fire underperforming founders, maintaining accountability. Discussing potential break-up scenarios is responsible. For co-founder breakups pre-product market fit, YC guidelines suggest a token equity amount (0.5% - 2%) for those leaving before the one-year cliff. After the cliff but before product market fit, a departing founder should retain no more than 5% of the company. This ensures remaining founders and new hires can be adequately incentivized to drive the company forward. Severance is reasonable for fired founders (one to three months) but not typically for those who leave voluntarily. All departing founders should resign from the board, sign a release, and grant proxy voting rights to remaining founders. The common flawed reasoning for disproportionate equity splits often stems from short-term thinking. "My co-founder agreed" is insufficient; the CEO must consider long-term motivation, especially during difficult times. The fallacy that the person with the original idea deserves more equity is incorrect; execution is paramount. A few months' head start doesn't justify a significant equity disparity. The same holds true for experience or for founders who come onboard after funding or launch: a tech startup is a long-term project and most of the work remains. Salary should be distinct from equity; salary is the means for survival, while equity is a motivator for high performance and potential below-market compensation. Avoid tying someone's compensation needs to equity allocation. Performance-based equity is generally discouraged because early goals are often fluid and subject to pivots. Innovation isn't needed in equity distribution; best practices exist for a reason. Part-time founders are rarely a good fit and shouldn't be considered in the co-founder equity equation. Dynamic equity agreements, with ever-changing terms, are overcomplicated and less motivating than a clear equity stake combined with vesting and cliffs. Even if one founder stays with the company longer and contributes more in the long run, generous initial equity splits are still crucial. Early co-founders provide essential initial energy and expertise that get the company off the ground. Without them, the company might never reach its full potential. Ultimately, co-founder equity is a tool for maximizing motivation and increasing the chances of building a successful product.