4 ms·

It sounds like a very UNbalanced partnership. The financing is coming all from one side and the work (assuming your startup is software related) will be done on

It sounds like a very UNbalanced partnership. The financing is coming all from one side and the work (assuming your startup is software related) will be done on the other. He is being truthful with you when he says 33/66 is a lot for you. IIRC the split between Jobs and Woz was much more lopsided than that. If I were you, since he has access to money, I would just enter into it as Employee #1. Ask for a decent yearly rate, a C-level job title, and stock options. Set your hours firmly and don't overwork. Work for the long haul.

Labo333 9y ago
In fact, it is possible for us to find money in a lot of other places, and I think his work is at least as important as mine. It would be easy for us to get 500k from external investors. Plus, I'm not in need for money, so I don't care about a rate. For the moment he is CEO and I'm Chief Scientist. That is why I don't think the money is the big deal here, and even he didn't talk much about it because he knows that. It is a software related company, but much more a scientific company (about cryptography and machine learning). Yeah the split between Jobs and Woz was one of his arguments, but do you think it was fair? Would you do the same as Woz?
- tboyd47 9y ago
  As technologists we are always in this weird state of being seen as both invaluable and replaceable. You are doing him a favor by working with him for free for this long.
Labo333 9y ago
So, I investigated the split between Jobs and Woz, and it seems that it was 65.4/34.6 at the date of the IPO (p. 22 of https://wiki.epfl.ch/a3-angels/documents/reunions/a3angels07-herve_lebret-equity_split_study.pdf https://wiki.epfl.ch/a3-angels/documents/reunions/a3angels07...). But when the company started, the split was 45/45 (10 for Wayne) (http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html). Steve Wozniak was not interested in money, that is how I explain the difference. Still, even at the time of the IPO, the split was slightly more than 33/66.

Labo333 9y ago

In fact, it is possible for us to find money in a lot of other places, and I think his work is at least as important as mine. It would be easy for us to get 500k from external investors. Plus, I'm not in need for money, so I don't care about a rate. For the moment he is CEO and I'm Chief Scientist. That is why I don't think the money is the big deal here, and even he didn't talk much about it because he knows that. It is a software related company, but much more a scientific company (about cryptography and machine learning). Yeah the split between Jobs and Woz was one of his arguments, but do you think it was fair? Would you do the same as Woz?

tboyd47 9y ago
As technologists we are always in this weird state of being seen as both invaluable and replaceable. You are doing him a favor by working with him for free for this long.

Labo333 9y ago

So, I investigated the split between Jobs and Woz, and it seems that it was 65.4/34.6 at the date of the IPO (p. 22 of https://wiki.epfl.ch/a3-angels/documents/reunions/a3angels07-herve_lebret-equity_split_study.pdf https://wiki.epfl.ch/a3-angels/documents/reunions/a3angels07...). But when the company started, the split was 45/45 (10 for Wayne) (http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html). Steve Wozniak was not interested in money, that is how I explain the difference. Still, even at the time of the IPO, the split was slightly more than 33/66.