> I know personally I turned down a few opportunities at promising startups simply because I was young, in my twenties, and a year felt like a long time. I found the probability of a life changing event that would require me to move and leave a company too high, and didn't want to bust my butt for 10 months with a salary cut, then have to leave and get no equity. So I said "no" to a few opportunities that otherwise would have been great.

I'm curious: Did you try to negotiate? I have had luck negotiating the terms of equity in the past, but I'm not sure if my experience generalizes.

> Currently incentives first your first year are to focus on not getting fired. Now it can be on making an impact.

If someone is so unmotivated at a job that they're not making an impact, I don't know if removing the cliff would help; they likely shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. If you join a new place and realize that it's a poor fit, it's usually best to cut your losses and move elsewhere immediately, even if your equity hasn't vested. The presence of a cliff doesn't significantly change that math.

I agree about missing out on hires because of the cliff, I just don't think it's that unreasonable to have one.

> I've always found the one year cliff funny, since investors don't have a cliff.

Investors don’t have a cliff because they give their money upfront. How would a cliff work in that situation?