请问HN：YC / HN如何看待创始人投票权分配与股权分配之间的关系？
我正在与多个创始人共同创办一家初创公司，我们正在努力就治理结构做出早期决策。<p>股权分配方式相对简单，但有一位创始人担心失去对长期技术方向和产品愿景的控制。这引发了一个问题：投票权是否必须与股权相对应，或者在创始人之间结构不同的投票权是否合理，即使股权分配不同。<p>我并不是在谈论上市公司双重股权或IPO式的控制。这纯粹是一个早期阶段的私营初创公司问题。<p>我想了解的一些具体问题包括：
* YC一般是否期望投票权与股权分配相等，还是可以接受灵活性？
* 创始人之间的投票不对称（不包括董事会控制）是否被视为不当？
* 你见过YC公司中某位创始人拥有过大的投票控制权以保护愿景或技术知识产权吗？
* 如果真正的担忧是保护技术方向或防止偏离，投票权是否是错误的工具，而董事会结构/创始人协议是否是更好的路径？
* YC在什么阶段会考虑投票控制的问题？<p>这里的目标不是固化权力，而是避免未来创始人之间的冲突，同时保持公司能够获得资金并与YC的规范保持一致。<p>希望听到那些经历过YC、筹集过风险投资或见证过此类情况（无论是成功还是失败）的人士的看法。
查看原文
I’m working on a startup with multiple founders and we’re trying to make an early decision about governance.<p>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.<p>I’m not talking about public-company dual-class shares or IPO-style control. This is purely an early-stage, private startup question.<p>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?<p>The goal here is not entrenchment, but avoiding future founder conflict while keeping the company fundable and aligned with YC norms.<p>Would appreciate perspectives from people who’ve been through YC, raised VC, or seen this go wrong (or right).