I think it's a question of how much salary. There seems to be a consensus "unwritten" understanding that founders pay themselves (well below) market rate, if th

I think it's a question of how much salary. There seems to be a consensus "unwritten" understanding that founders pay themselves (well below) market rate, if they pay themselves anything. After all, they're in for some very big rewards if their company succeeds, and making it a success includes putting as much capital into the business as possible, at the expense (in part) of one's own salary. I'm not convinced this is a fair arrangement for the founder(s), especially in the current environment, where the times to scale and the exit valuation requirements are such as they are. It seems to me, at least, in the current environment that if the success (from an investor's "big exit" point of view) of a company hinges in part on the founder(s) taking less than market salary, the company is already not necessarily a good candidate for the exit track required to justify investment.