> "dismiss the amount of risk founders take on to get a company to the point of even being able to make their first hire." I don't think this is really the iss

> "dismiss the amount of risk founders take on to get a company to the point of even being able to make their first hire." I don't think this is really the issue. The issue is that the economics of startups don't really work if you expect below-market salaries to be a thing. Founders shoulder tremendous risk and (the smart ones) live on starvation-level salaries for months, if not years, before they bring on their first employee. Sure - and they deserve to be compensated appropriately via equity. Employees, having taken on only minimal risk, don't deserve much equity at all - equity at this point is a bonus and a motivator to act in the company's best interests. This works great. The problem comes along when we bring in sub-market salaries. The reduction in salary or benefits demands an increase in equity - equity coming directly out of the founders. And here's where it all falls apart: to make up for below-market compensation, the amount of equity that would be rationally required would mean too little equity to account for founder risk. The numbers simply do not add up.