3 ms·
When I saw the title "zero-equity co-founder" I thought it was about inspiring employees to work as committed as an actual co-founder, which would be totally ap
by tyng 16y ago
When I saw the title "zero-equity co-founder" I thought it was about inspiring employees to work as committed as an actual co-founder, which would be totally appropriate.
I think the downside of single founder startup is that 1. there's no one to bounce your ideas with; 2. speed to market is greatly reduced; 3. there's no one to share the stress or keep each other motivated when things get tough; and most importantly, 4. there's no one to share the joy when you manage to solve a business/technical problem that is not visible to outsiders.
I don't see any apparent advantage of keeping a single founder startup. You may have the ability to run the startup as well or even better as a multi-cofounder startup and keep all the shares - but it's not fun, and fun is very important for an entrepreneur!
- StavrosK 16y agoIt's absolutely not appropriate to ask employees to work as well as actual co-founders. If you want them to work as well as co-founders, give them equity. Hell, I expect my employees to fight me for their rights, when I don't give them enough. If you aren't going to pay your employees like co-founders, they should very well not work as cofounders.
- tyng 16y agoThat wasn't what I meant. What I was saying was that you want to inspire your employees with your vision, so that they feel a sense of purpose in your startup. When your startup is making meaning not just money, the satisfaction they get from doing work is more than any money or equity you can pay. They are committed. And I'm not against giving employees equity at all. But inspiration is a higher level, and arguably the right kind of, motivation.
- StavrosK 16y agoI agree, but I think that's something they grow into, rather than something you can enforce/influence. I have a feeling we agree, though.