[wnolens]

I almost left for an ultra early startup, still running on seed money. They offered a typical SDE2-Senior salary + 1%. I was kind of offended. I'd be inventing their core technology (which didn't exist yet and which their CTO wasn't fit to do) and probably interviewing every engineer and growing them.

Even IF they achieved a 100-300M exit, after dilution I would be compensated at best par with a FANG Senior over about 5-7y.

I was pretty excited about joining and would have been all-in. So I asked for 2-3% and was denied. Looking back, I'm glad because even 3% isn't worth it. Not when the founders are taking 10x.

[kelnos]

Oof. The CTO not having the chops to build the core technology would have been a huge red flag for me. At a 75-person startup the CTO should transition to be more of a manager and strategy person than a builder, but at time of founding they should be doing 100% of the building. Hiring the first engineer should be a way to increase the pace of tech work, not start it.

If none of the founders are technical enough to build the MVP, none of them should take the CTO title.

[wnolens]

It was my opinion, but yes. Highly technical founder CTO, but to me there's a chasm between "can write the code for a b+tree" and "can build and then operate a data platform service". They can build an MVP and impress an investor, but that's not a sellable product - not even remotely close.

[indymike]

> . I'd be inventing their core technology (which didn't exist yet and which their CTO wasn't fit to do) and probably interviewing every engineer and growing them.

I see this a lot in failing startups:

The CTO is a pure manager who can't do any actual engineering. The result is that the shares and salary that could have been traded for getting product to market faster & better ends up being burnt on an empty chair.