Ask HN: What's the incentive for 'Founding Engineers'?

[iceman_w]

I'm trying to understand the incentive for engineers to join a startup as a 'founding engineer'. To me it seems like taking on all the risk that a founder takes (pre-pmf, pre-revenue, etc.) but getting a small fraction of the equity that a founder gets. The risk-reward ratio doesn't seem to add up.

Looking for insights from folks who have been in the startup world.

[trh0awayman]

- Total control

- Chaotic, energizing environment

- Massive payoffs

- Low-stakes politics, informal environment

- Being around an eclectic group of people

You face basically no risk, not in any real sense (like being sued, owing someone money, public embarrassment). You might have opportunity cost, but really only if you're a Bogglehead/Blind/FIRE-type, in which case you probably wouldn't pass the culture fit anyway. Someone people thrive in these early environments.

It's like weighing the pros and cons list of skydiving "Hm... I get only 14 seconds of pleasure for every 2 micromorts? I could get 2 minutes of pleasure from roller coasters for only 0.5 micromorts!" As soon as you bring "risk-reward ratio" into the conversation, you've lost the plot.

Watch Halt and Catch Fire (cheesy show, but in a good way), read about the very early SpaceX days when everything was going wrong.

[ramn7]

I personally think it makes perfect sense for FULLstack "founding" engineers (that are not expected to become CTOs) to be cofounders with significant equity, assuming of course they're joining at a risky phase (saying that as an experienced engineer who's both a freelance and solopreneur).

Other than that, it's all a function of compensation/risk, safety, and effort compared to their other options.