Story

I’m working on a startup with multiple founders and we’re trying to make an early decision about governance.

Equity is split in a straightforward way, but one founder is worried about losing control over long-term technical direction and product vision. This raises the question of whether voting power must mirror equity, or whether it’s reasonable to structure different voting rights among founders, even if equity is split differently.

I’m not talking about public-company dual-class shares or IPO-style control. This is purely an early-stage, private startup question.

Some specific things I’m trying to understand: * Does YC generally expect voting power = equity split, or is flexibility acceptable? * Are founder-level voting asymmetries (outside of board control) frowned upon? * Have you seen YC companies where one founder had outsized voting control to protect vision or technical IP? * If the real concern is protecting technical direction or preventing derailment, are voting rights the wrong tool, and are board structure / founder agreements the better path? * At what stage does YC think about voting control at all?

The goal here is not entrenchment, but avoiding future founder conflict while keeping the company fundable and aligned with YC norms.

Would appreciate perspectives from people who’ve been through YC, raised VC, or seen this go wrong (or right).