I hate to sound too negative, but 99% of that "Rate My Startup"'s I see on here are worth nothing now, and will be worth nothing in 5 years. Don't spend too muc

I hate to sound too negative, but 99% of that "Rate My Startup"'s I see on here are worth nothing now, and will be worth nothing in 5 years. Don't spend too much time debating whether you deserve 90% or nothing or 20% of nothing, because they both equal the same thing. Unless there was a overriding reason for one partner to have more equity I would only ever do 50/50 or 1/3rd each etc. Equal shares means everyone has the same amount riding on it. Everyone suffers the same stresses. Everyone gets the same wins. Reasons that would make me do it differently, if one partner has a proven track record (has had a major success in the past, that they were truly part of), if it was an extremely technical project (getting better search results than Google for example) I think the technical co-founder is probably worth more - if they can deliver, similarly if it is a very hard sell the marketing/business person might deserve more (although if it is that hard a sell I'd stay away). Lastly if the business needed money and someone had a contact that could bring in that money it would be worth considering giving them more equity (if it was me, I'd be demanding more). I'm pretty sure in general YC gives the company equal money based on number of founders. I would imagine as a general rule that means they see all founders as equals. Seems like a pretty good guideline. (Would be interesting to hear what PG and co do when they meet a team and think 2 out of 3 are awesome - do they fund, not fund, tell them to lose the other guy etc?)