Under simple dilution rules, the Investor takes 50%, and the existing shareholders are diluted to 50% of their stake - the C-Suite owns 5% of 2 Million, 10 million as before.
If the C-Suite demands that their equity proportion remains at 1%, they’d suddenly own a stake representing 2 million valuation. That difference needs to come from somewhere.
The claim in the tweet was that they got 1% of the value of the diluted shares: e.g., on paper they should own 1% of $100m, but somehow they only got $10k out of it. There does seem to be a culture of this going around now -- the VC version of "Hollywood accounting". In a lot of situations it doesn't make much sense to me -- is it really worth poisoning the well of startup talent for the VCs to get $95m instead of $85m?
If the value of a company is $10m and the company asks an investor to give $10m in exchange for equity, the investor should own 100%.
If the value of a company is $20m and the company asks an investor to give $10m in exchange for equity, the investor should own 50%.
Such a privilege is also likely to be almost worthless - if the company succeeds and the round makes it worth more, you’ll win even with dilution. If the company doesn’t, then other clauses such as liquidation preferences will make your stock worthless, regardless of how much you own.
Without this provision, it's possible in many ways for the employee to be left with far less than $X, even if the company succeeds. In some ways <<<<<<$X.
