4 ms·
I think this is pretty much bullshit. The only part I agree with is full-time status... but that's a no brainer. The rest are "pretend realities." There's no re
by randall 16y ago
I think this is pretty much bullshit. The only part I agree with is full-time status... but that's a no brainer. The rest are "pretend realities." There's no reason why a CEO should get more, nor the person who came up with the idea... and the article doesn't have any more convincing an argument than "market realities."
As for reputation, it depends. I do think having someone who's a "name" as a cofounder is helpful, but does that "name" actually mean anything? I guess it could if you refer to the equity equation.
http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html
Still, I think going for the "married couple" approach of as close to equal as possible makes sense. Finding an equal cofounder seems crucial.
- danshapiro 16y agoPerhaps market realities aren't convincing to you, but they're quite real. Capable CEOs demand much more equity than capable CTOs in the market. http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/66/Startup-Founder-Compensation-Useful-Results-From-A-Recent-Survey.aspx http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/66/Startup-Founder-Comp... I believe a much smaller difference than this article is warranted, since most of the equity is compensation for risk, but some reflection of market is appropriate.
- randall 16y agoI think the disconnect happens in "experienced startup land" where someone has a proven track record, and "scrappy startup land" where it's just two folks with a dream. I can't imagine scrappy startup founders ever having anything but equal equity. There's no market for their services as a CEO, and the founder that they're working with should probably be their best friend from college / work / equiv.