I've never understood how 1% equity to be the first hire is attractive. It's irrational greed. You see stories like Google or Instagram and you think "that coul

I've never understood how 1% equity to be the first hire is attractive. It's irrational greed. You see stories like Google or Instagram and you think "that could be me". You're more likely to win the lottery than for that to be you. It's the same thing with crypto bros not wanting to miss the next Bitcoin. Not only is 1% substantially less than the 33% the last founder got, those shares aren't equal. Voting power, clawbacks, dilution, acceleration on change of control and so on. Thje most likely outcome is that equity is worth nothing. The next most likely outcome is an acquihire. Participating and liquidity preferences may mean your 1% stake is actually worth $0. Maybe the buyer offers you a new equity package but how is that different from just getting hired directly? Meanwhile, the founders often get huge bonuses (which are really a way of paying the equity holders less) with generous new equity packages (even with earn outs). If you're good enough to be hired as a founding engineer, you're good enough to be a founder or simply to work in big tech or fintech for $500k-$1M+ a year in total comp with next to no risk. And that total comp beats the expected value of your employee startup equity value by a mile.