I think it depends a lot on what it is that you want your company to be and how many people you're talking about. Also, there is a difference between wanting eq

I think it depends a lot on what it is that you want your company to be and how many people you're talking about. Also, there is a difference between wanting equity for control or equity for getting a share of the profits. With 2 people: I think either you have a 50/50 split or you might as well have 99/1 or even 100/0. Anything more than 50/50 means one person has effectively total control. Thus, why pretend it's anything other than a dictatorship in that instance? If you both want control, you need 50/50. If it is about making money, then in place of an equity stake, you can have a revenue sharing agreement that would provide a % of revenue or profits or even a % of whatever the company would get bought out for. The amount each person gets in that instance could vary a lot more based on contribution or whatever "fairness factors" made the most sense to both parties. The point is, control and profit sharing are two separate issues that often get lumped into the equity discussion when they don't have to. With 3+ people, I think the same rules tend to apply. I think for sake of simplicity it makes the most sense for smaller (non-VC backed companies) to split equity evenly among the founders or have a single person who has 100% control. Then, do revenue/profit sharing amongst everyone as is deemed "fair". If you are VC backed, well that's a different ballgame all together.