Open MattCantor opened 19 hours ago
I think the same issue arises if a Vesting Event
partially vests the award and some portion remains unvested.
Conceptually, the reason for the ambiguity is that the schema currently assumes that a vesting event always applies to the "next" installment in the vesting schedule.
That assumption holds for a relative vesting schedule. That's just normal time based vesting.
But it doesn't always hold for an acceleration event. It's appropriate to ask which installment in the vesting schedule the acceleration applies to.
We define vesting schedules in the schema imperatively. Even in the case where an array of vestings
is provided, we do not provide an id for each vesting event.
This means we cannot designate the installment in the vesting schedule that the acceleration should apply to. Instead we need to define a new vesting schedule imperatively again.
Description of Enhancement :
Why is this Needed?
The Vesting Acceleration Transaction includes a
date
field and a numericquantity
field, along with an unstructured field forcomments
.In the case of a partial acceleration, it is ambiguous whether the acceleration should apply to:
Pro-rata is the most common, but we see the other approaches as well.
Possible Approaches
One alternative would be to require a
vestings
field such as found in the Equity Compensation Issuance Transaction to provide the exact vesting dates and amounts for the vesting schedule that should apply following the partial acceleration.Or perhaps a field with e.g. enum
ApplyToFirst
,ApplyToLast
,ApplyProRata
, and an optionalvestings
field that takes precedence if it is provided.