[Swizec]

I actually also fix MVPs when they start breaking :)

Honestly, I just find working with startups and small companies in general to be more interesting, even though there is usually slightly less money involved. I got into this type of work by hanging around Hacker News and writing blogposts aimed at a hackerpreneur auidence.

It's amazing how many great projects you can attract if your writing is half decent and you have a good idea once in a blue moon.

As for jumping full in, yeah I'd love to eventually, but I've learned to be cautious and cover my bases first. Maybe when I have money saved up so I don't have to earn anything for months on end. Being young has its disadvantages.

[dtkuhn]

I'm curious as to why the conversation about compensation for work done for "non-technical" upstarts is almost always framed as a binary "payment in equity vs cash" issue. Seems like there would be a huge market for MVP development by developers with a hybrid compensation model. (Maybe this is already common?)

For instance, a developer could quote Price X to non-technical co-founders to develop a simple, proof-of-concept MVP with an agreement to would receive Equity Y upon completion if the developer either (1) stays on for Period P or (2) helps the founders successfully land a more suitable, long-term developer to take over the project. The parties could even agree that Equity Y would be larger (e.g. 2Y) if the developer stays on.

Benefits to the non-technical co-founders would be (a) a proof-of-concept (or failure), (b) alignment of incentives with a developer to try hard, and (c) access to an insider to help find a permanent developer upon completion of the MVP if the MVP developer wants to exit (e.g. for a better opportunity).

The benefit to the developer would be (i) guaranteed fees, (ii) potential for equity (even if he exists) and (iii) flexibility.

More, a subsequent developer would have the chance to deal with someone who speaks his own language in the negotiation with the non-technical cofounders, and could avoid and annoying and/or exhausting translation of technical details.

An obvious objection may just be that non-technical co-founders never have money to pay for an MVP. I am far from an expert, but I would think that some do.

[Swizec]

What you're describing is called vesting and is hopefully used by anybody doling out equity of their company.

The options for a developer in today's marketplace are such:

1. Technical founders who can offer equity only

2. Technical founders who can offer equity and money

3. Technical founders who can offer money only.

4. Non-technical founders who can offer equity only.

5. Non-technical founders who can offer equity and money.

6. Non-technical founders who can offer money only.

In either type of founder, the best option for a developer is equity+money, if they can afford a full-time commitment.

If the founder can only offer equity, this raises the stakes significantly and is a problem. Especially if the founder has overlapping skills with the developer. But the overlap of skills also breeds a certain camaraderie that is not to be ignored.

If the founder can only offer money, that makes it a clean [probably ongoing] contracting job with the flexibility to work on separate projects and whatnot.

The real problem with equity+money is that you are roped in full-time and tied down for an extended period of time. The reason I personally got into freelancing instead of having a normal job is that it gives me the freedom to change projects frequently - every couple of months. I advance quicker as a developer, grow my network quicker and my life is more interesting.

Knowing that I will spend the next 2 years working on a specific project is a very big commitment indeed and I want to be damn sure it's something I am extremely passionate about. (hint: this is usually reserved for my own ideas)

Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that I am happy taking on clients with no more than a few months' commitment and be certain that my bandwidth will always be filled to the brim for the foreseeable future anyway. In fact I am strongly thinking about expanding myself into a small team just to keep up with demand.

PS: there's also likely a bunch of legal and tax hassle in having my consulting company or myself be part owner of a bunch of other companies.

[z-factor]

I asked something similar recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5039241

That got zero offers.