[lucasyvas]

There’s zero chance this would ever be a fair split.

They know nothing about building technology so are never in the right. This happens often enough that most startup accelerators pre-flag it as criteria to not invest in founders (with an out of balance equity split).

[randysalami]

Maybe he has privilege and lots of connections? Some people have doors open for them just because of who they are and there is value in that.

[throwup238]

Then why do they need to give the technical co-founder 20%, or even make him a co-founder at all? They either have enough privilege and connection that they can bring in serious funding from investors, future clients, or friends/family/fools, - or they don't and their privilege and connections aren't really worth that much. If they did, they'd much rather give them a few percentage points and pay them a salary, capturing all the upside.

It's a broad over-generalization but it's a good rule of thumb. They must have access to demonstrable money and/or power before they're worth an 80/20 split, well above what most random business guys can bring in from even elite universities.

Edit: A decent somewhat recent example is Theranos. No biotech VC would touch them because they do due diligence on the basic scientific viability of their investments, but Holmes and her cofounder were able to bring in huge tech investors from family connection and even get people like Henry Kissinger on their board, who also helped them get more investors. That's the kind of connections that might be worth an uneven split.

[nativeit]

They need to pay for the tech then. Hire an engineer and design team. If they don’t have the access to that sort of immediate funding, then I’d struggle to imagine what sort of in-the-bag contacts they could bring to justify such an uneven split.

[DonHopkins]

And that type of person quite often turns out to be a huge over-privileged narcissist who's never had to work hard a day in their life, because of their family and frat-bro connections, and who will gladly fuck you over without a second thought.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43815768

>Agreed. The tough thing, though, is that it's (generally) a lot easier to spot a bad engineer than a bs "ideas guy".

>>It behooves everyone to be able to spot a narcissist, and that eliminates a huge swath of bad "idea guys" and bad MBAs.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They know nothing about building technology so are never in the right

I’ve easily seen more start-ups fail because the technical co-founder got pedantic about something with zero commercial relevance than I have where the non-technical founder rolled over their tech team. Mostly because the latter fail early while the former can sort of look like it’s not a trash fire for a little bit longer.

As you say, the unequal split is a red flag. Not the direction it leans.

[aspenmayer]

> I’ve easily seen more start-ups fail because the technical co-founder got pedantic about something with zero commercial relevance than I have where the non-technical founder rolled over their tech team.

Can you think of examples of the opposite? There are a few variables here for technical/business/commercial and fail/succeed so I won’t write them all out, just curious what you have seen to be honest.