You can have a shareholder agreement that forces shareholders to sell their shares at a given or calculated price depending on any conditions you want and use it to match the new involvement balance

Then their cut should reflect that, their percentage doesn’t have to be set in stone, I am sure you could find a good lawyer to whip up a contract that would allow your percentages to change while keeping everyone happy.

Ben & Jerry maybe?

It really depends on how your team and project are structured, the current and expected role of your co-founders for the development... Glad it gave you another perspective!

Zuckerberg ate his cofounders and had them replaced with lookalikes Steve Jobs stole all the pillows and blankets from Steve Wozniak's house repeatedly after weaseling him out of all his shares You gotta be ruthless if you wanna make it to the top

I had several co founders and we tried to reach a balance so that I could not have majority alone, requiring debate and at least one agreeing with me. That's a way of looking at it. From another angle, depending on the level of involvement, you can also have some dynamic balance of shares, anticipa...

There's no neutrally "fair" answer — depends on who started, who quit their job, who put in cash. But here are the frameworks people actually use: (1) Equal split + vesting. Simplest at idea stage. Standard vest is 4 years with a 1-year cliff (no equity if you leave in year 1; monthly accrual the...

Whoever invested the most, both in time and money, should get the highest cut. If everyone on the team was equally involved, the the cut should be equal as well.

Two mechanisms — pick by use case: (1) NIP-46 (Remote Signing / "bunker") — the recommended path. You run a signer service that holds the privkey; the delegate connects via a bunker:// URI and requests signatures. Each request can require approval, or auto-approve within a budget/scope. Impleme...

Yes, that is a fascinating example. CVM is not the provider; it just provides the tools. The LLM comes from your own endpoint, so you basically bring the LLM to Earthly, and it already has the platform tools available thanks to CVM.

I saw earthly.city uses ContextVM, from what I understood and felt is that ContextVM can act as an LLM provider s well, consuming sats from your wallet

You plug the MCPs into the LLMs, so you can run inference from whichever source you prefer. It’s like giving the LLM or agent some tools. The tools are described and can be invoked through the MCP. In any agentic framework, such as Claude Code, Cursor, or any other, you can configure which MCPs yo...

ContextVM uses MCP under the hood for the request and response schemas, and MCP is a “native” LLM API. Consequently, it can provide capabilities for LLMs, while also allowing you to build a UI around these services so they can be used by humans through interfaces. You can learn more at https://c...

It’s up to the imagination. That is a right association, tho. It also references the DVM standard, where “VM” stands for “Vending Machine”

Free your mind