[DeusExMachina]

So far I see everyone here tell you to give 50% or more to the CTO. Which is hardly surprising since you are on a website for technical people.

But even if I am a developer myself, I disagree.

There is a tendency on HN to consider the technical people in a company as the ones that contribute the most. In my opinion, that is often not the case.

In fact, someone even called you "the idea guy", as if all you did is having the idea.

I think that, as others have pointed out, the sensible approach is to split equity based on the value brought to the company. But value does not equal necessary effort, time spent or "tangible" output in the form of code.

While a CTO might spend a lot of time building "tangible" assets which are definitely important, that is not the only value brought to this company. There are assets other than code.

You went through the process and the risks of validating the product and bring in the first customers. Those are assets too and are what makes the business exist in the first place. Without those, all the code a technical person can produce is worthless.

So I would say you should consider the value this CTO will bring to the company and compare it to the value you already brought yourself and will bring in the future.

All in all, though I think that proposing anything from 50% up for the CTO like others are doing in this thread is not reasonable.

Also consider that with an even split, it will be hard to take a decision when you disagree with each other. Someone must be able to have a final say on each matter. Since I doubt you want that person to be the new one you will bring in, I would say that their share should be from 49% down.

Finally, it's not in your question, but do you need a technical founder? You might, so you are the only one that can answer this. But also consider that, since you have clients that will bring in revenue, you can just use that revenue to hire someone on a contract basis first and on a stable basis later, without slitting the equity.

[slackingoff2017]

It really depends on the company. If your product is software then the CTO is in charge of your entire company minus ancillary functions and should definitely get a ton of equity.

If your startup sells shoes or something the CTO isn't nearly as important.

[jsjohnst]

Even if your product is software, it doesn't matter at all if nobody knows about it and/or buys it. How do people learn about a product? Marketing teams. How do people buy a product? Sales teams. Neither of which report to a CTO customarily.

As someone who has been a VP of Eng and/or CTO in multiple startups, I'd love+ to say my value was the most important, but the truth is that simply isn't correct. It's a team effort and everyone has to be putting in effort to succeed.

+ - actually, I wouldn't, but you get my point hopefully ;)

[slackingoff2017]

Eh, I don't buy it :). Every company has sales, accounting, marketing. The thing that makes a software company special is their technology.

[meric]

I suppose the task at hand is then to differentiate between whether it is a software company or a company using software.

[zerr]

Don't underestimate selling shoes or something at "web scale" - this is what Amazon does ;)

[slackingoff2017]

And exactly the reason their engineers are treated as a cost center. Logistics and sales are more important than sound engineering.

[UK-AL]

In my area amazon are known pay really well. They push you hard, but is seen as a good place to develop as a developer.

[threesevens]

Thank you for this response. Naturally, I agree 100%.

You're right, I may not need a CTO. I would love to bring on someone to do part-time work as it comes up, until revenues start coming in. Scaling up from there and having that person become the CTO and grow into the role would be ideal.