well, you're not ''wrong''. I hope you will agree though that working for 18 months without pay at a startup very much stretches the definition of "employee".

well, you're not ''wrong''. I hope you will agree though that working for 18 months without pay at a startup very much stretches the definition of "employee". (as opposed to "cofounder" or "unpaid intern"). most people who can claim the title of "early employee but not cofounder" here at HN would not say they have gone 18 months without pay in that title or would do so. so yes it's a data point but it's a pathological one. On the other hand, 18 months without pay doesn't scratch the surface of what a cofounder can expect: it's one of the best-case scenarios that anyone could possibly expect! A cofounder would jump at a chance to see liquidity within 18 months of founding a new startup. More typical is more like 24 months absolute minimum, 36-72 months average, and often longer is the norm. And during that time you don't just hock a watch or pay for fuel: most cofounders pay tens of thousands of dollars of their own money, often every month and putting every source of liquidity they can into the business as it ramps up. and more often than not, as sad as all this is, most cofounders do lose 100% of their investment and have nobody to blame, nobody to even ask for a break. they have cliffs, and CANNOT jump ship. WHen a cofounder jumps ship they lose 100% of the entire equity they have in the company. But at the same time, most startups simply don't go anywhere. I would be hard-pressed to find a metric by which the average early employee gets absolutely nothing for his time and has to pay for all the infrastructure used to employ him. it's just not the same planet. of course there are pathological cases that are the worst of both worlds: early employees who should be called cofounders, are paid nothing, and do not get meaningful equity. you don't need much trust to be an unpaid intern though.