As others have said... company ownership perspectives are subjective. My opinion is that all C-level execs should have a piece of the company that vests over t

As others have said... company ownership perspectives are subjective. My opinion is that all C-level execs should have a piece of the company that vests over time. Ownership should be proportional to impact on the growth/bottom line of the company. In a technology organization, the CTO role has a large impact on the company's present & future. I have seen a lot of bad behavior from small business owners and start-up founders where they behave in a very miserly fashion with respect to equity for critical employees. Sometimes, key employees just allow themselves to be used... in other cases, key employees leave and it severely harms the company. I think this is something that every owner/founder needs to really spend some introspective time on... being greedy as an owner/founder is understandable but greed can harm your long term interests. As an employee, the key factor with negotiating equity is understanding your realistic "value over replacement". If an owner/founder believes they can replace your contribution, at or close to your level of compensation, they have little impetus to compensate you better and your request will fall on deaf ears. If you are vital to the company and your owner/founder will rapidly be "up shit creek without a paddle" if you leave... then you are definitely in a situation where you deserve part of the company. Your owner/founder may not agree with you, of course. Using market rate arguments, and the like, seldom works in practice. Your particular situation is unique. That CTO's almost always have equity is certainly in your favor... and means your request for appropriate equity is not crazy and really should be expected.