[BeetleB]

> If you do the Math, 1% seems fair.

The math is simple:

As a founding engineer, I do almost the same amount of work as the founder (e.g. 90%), and get only 5% or less of the reward.

If the founder is the main source of capital, I can understand. But if all the founder does is build the product and raise money, how different is (s)he from you?

[malisper]

> As a founding engineer, I do almost the same amount of work as the founder (e.g. 90%), and get only 5% or less of the reward.

If you believe you're doing 90% the work of a founder and getting paid 5%, then you should be an actual founder and get paid 20x as much as you be as a founding engineer

[shalmanese]

What % of startups fail before they even get to the stage of being able to hire a founding engineer? You can either make the choice to be a founder and start before this selection filter or be a founding engineer and start after the selection filter.

Of course, the odds are not static and some people genuinely do have a better RAROC by being a founder but most people overestimate their founder abilities vs the odds and feel like they're not fairly compensated at 1%, which is fine, most people shouldn't be founding engineers either.

But there's a reason it's equilibrated around the 1% mark because early equity compensation is about risk, not effort.