Recently, I was on a call with a first-time founder, Sam, who had just assembled a seriously impressive founding team.

He'd left a senior role at a major tech company to build something from scratch, and the early signal from investors was overwhelmingly positive.

He should have been thrilled.

Instead, he was tied in knots over a single conversation.

"Regina, one of my closest friends in the industry just sent me investment terms."

I waited, because the way Sam said it told me this was not good news.

"The valuation that was proposed is a fraction of what we think we can get. If I’m correct, my friend would get a massive markup almost immediately. But that would make it really hard for us to bring in the larger investors we need."

I asked him what he wanted to do.

He went quiet for a second. "I mean, we have so much history and I’ve always been treated with respect. This investor has opened doors I couldn't have opened on my own. I was introduced by him to people who are now on my team. I've known him for years."

Sam paused. "But giving him what he wants would make it basically impossible to move the company forward."

The dilemma Sam faced in that moment is something that keeps founders up at night:

The Loyalty Anchor

Many founders face The Loyalty Anchor at some point in their journey.

The Loyalty Anchor comes in many forms:

It could be an early employee who expects a title bump that doesn't match their current performance, just because they were early.

Or an advisor who helped you find product-market fit in year one, and now expects a board seat in year three.

Or a friend who sent you your first client, and now wants a discount on your most premium offering.

The Loyalty Anchor is especially brutal because it comes wrapped in warmth. It doesn't feel like a hardball negotiation. It feels like a friend saying, "Hey, I want to be part of this. Let's make it easy."

All of the most successful people I’ve known and worked with have faced The Loyalty Anchor.

The guilt is real: the story they tell themselves goes something along the lines of, “This person was there when I was a nobody, but I can’t help but feel like they’re using that as leverage now to get what they want out of me. I feel extracted on.”

The usual instinct is to say yes to the request, because saying no feels like ingratitude.

It feels like you're punishing someone for being early, or like you've forgotten who was there for you when nobody else was.

The history is real. The gratitude is sincere. But the terms don't match the trajectory.

The Stewardship Reframe

When Sam walked me through the situation, his first instinct for how to push back was to make it about the other investors.

"I can say that whoever leads the round isn't going to be happy with my friend having that kind of markup,” he said.

I stopped him. "Wait. Do you hear how that's framed? You're making it about other people being unhappy with your friend. That puts them on the defensive. They are going to feel like you're saying she's the problem."

Sam thought about it. "Yeah. That's not what I mean, and I definitely don’t want it to come across that way."

"I know,” I replied. “So try this instead:

'I think whoever leads our round would find it irresponsible of me to accept these terms. It would make it impossible for me to close the deals with the investors who can write the larger check. I would be an irresponsible founder to say yes to this, because I wouldn’t be able to raise subsequent rounds, and that would defeat the whole thing for both of us.'"

The shift in language was very small, and Sam would essentially be saying the same thing, but it would be received completely differently.

This founder wasn't rejecting his friend’s offer: instead, he was behaving as a responsible steward of the company, and finding a way for his friend to be a part of that success. This is the Stewardship Reframe.

Instead of "your terms don't work for me," it becomes "I owe it to this company, and to you as someone who's going to be part of it, to protect the integrity of what we're building."

You're honoring the relationship by taking the other person's involvement seriously enough to refuse to put it in a structure that's going to blow up down the line.

What I Watched Happen Next

Here's the part that most founders don't anticipate: the other side usually respects it.

Sam went back to his friend and said almost exactly what we'd rehearsed.

He told his friend, “I respect you, and I really want to find a way for us to work together. You have been someone very meaningful in my life, and I want to make sure that is reflected in our arrangement. My worry is that if we do the deal at the proposed valuation, it will handicap my ability to close the larger institutional round because of the amount of dilution.”

His friend listened, and, to his surprise, agreed with him. “That makes a lot of sense, and I understand why you feel this way. What do you have in mind?”

With that, Sam proposed terms that would work for everyone.

The new terms allowed him to responsibly raise a larger round with the institutional investors he needed to close the round, all while still giving his friend a meaningful early stage return. Everyone was happy with the new setup.

The thing about people who believe in you early is that they genuinely DO want you to succeed.

When you show them that you're thinking about the full picture, and not just trying to avoid a hard conversation, it actually builds more trust than caving in to their first offer.

When you use the Stewardship Reframe, the other person will almost always ask you what you have in mind instead.

Be prepared to answer that question in a way that shows you honor the relationship you've had over time, while also being responsible about what the company needs.

Sam told me a few months later that this conversation was one of the most difficult ones he'd had in a long time, not because his friend was difficult, but because he was terrified of disappointing someone whose opinion he valued.

He also told me something I thought was really perceptive.

"I think if I'd just said yes to the terms shared because I didn't want to have an awkward conversation, I would have been less respected, even subconsciously. I think it would have framed me as someone who could be pushed around. And then every future conversation would have been shaped by that."

He was right.

"But Regina, what if they walk away?"

This is a question constantly when I talk about the Loyalty Anchor, and I want to be direct about it:

If someone walks away because you set fair boundaries, that tells you something important about the relationship.

I worked with a founder last year who had to renegotiate terms with an angel investor who'd been one of his earliest supporters. The angel had put in a small check at a very favorable valuation, and when the Series A came together, the lead investor flagged the cap table as a problem.

The founder was terrified. "This guy believed in me when I was literally pitching out of my apartment. I can't go back to him and ask him to restructure."

He did it anyway. He called the angel, explained the situation, and asked if they could adjust the terms to make the round work.

The angel said, "Of course. I want this company to succeed. Tell me what you need."

They restructured it in a single phone call. The founder told me afterward he'd spent three weeks dreading a conversation that took fifteen minutes.

The sad truth is, the ones who punish you for making responsible decisions were never really in it for you. They were in it for the terms; for what they could gain out of you.

And that is valuable information you want to have as early as possible.

Conclusion

If you've found yourself caught in a Loyalty Anchor, whether it's with an investor, an early employee, an advisor, or anyone whose history with you makes the conversation feel loaded, ask yourself:

Am I agreeing to this request because it’s right for where the company is going? Or is it because saying no feels like betrayal?

If it's the second one, you aren’t protecting the relationship. You're sacrificing the company - all just because you want to avoid a hard conversation.

And the person on the other side of that table, the one who believed in you early, deserves better than a leader who can't advocate for the thing they invested in.

Until next time,

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Are you here for the first time? If so, remember to subscribe below…