We split it equally. Should we have?

Two threads crossed this week and produced an uncomfortable question about LuarAI’s own founding documents.

Thread one: a Reddit analysis of real co-founder equity splits. The intuitive split, ours, is equal parts. The data says otherwise: two founders tend toward 60/40, three toward something like 50/30/20 ▸ 26:10. The stated reason: startups tend to need a transformational figure, the person who works most, knows most, and sets the direction everyone follows ▸ 26:49, and unequal equity is how the cap table admits it.

Thread two: The Bear. Carmy unilaterally declares his “non-negotiables”, a Michelin star, a menu that changes daily, and the kitchen erupts at not being consulted. The defense mounted on camera: leaders have to make the hard calls alone sometimes; maybe they steer you into the rocks, maybe the feeling is right and it takes you where you had to go ▸ 27:31. Marcus’s answer is the healthy follower’s version: I don’t care, take us to that star ▸ 27:19. And the Richie table scene supplies the sharpest line, on why experience outranks local habit: “you organized those tables like someone who never left Chicago” ▸ 29:52.

el cap table dice en voz alta quién sostiene el timón →

Julia’s synthesis brought it home without flinching: equity should track merit and weight, in The Bear’s case, Carmy inherited the place, carries the Michelin experience, and is the executive chef, equal parts would be the fiction ▸ 30:45. LuarAI’s three-way split was made when everything was symmetrical and hypothetical. The diary notes, without resolving, that the workloads stopped being symmetrical some time ago, and that the healthiest version of this conversation is the one had early, on camera, as theory, before it has to be had late, as grievance…