I trust that you're not going to complain if they quit your project for a project that does offer them equity.
FWIW, no one is indespensible in a startup; some are merely harder to replace than others. I'll bet that "original idea" guys are getting equity even though they cease to be indespensible.
I have been in too many startups that died because they lost or failed to recruit one particular person---or in the case of LMI survived (for a while) because I recruited one indispensable classmate who made their LAMBDA processor work---to believe this.
A reverse example would be the receiving clerk at Intel who single-handily almost killed them as mentioned in Chringley's book.
In my experience, just about every founder of a startup is "indispensable" after you shake things out a bit---make a single mistake with any of them, and you're not likely to survive.
I suppose that means this is an "appeal to authority", but, still, if a person critical to making software work is gone, and the company fails specifically because they can't make their software work, what else am I to assume?
(Needless to say, sometimes I've been that person.)
I'll buy that a company can be set up so it is dependent. Outside of some special cases (subset of technology and relationships), I think that doing so is usually unnecessary and the "indespensable" label is typically untrue, especially when it comes to biz folk.
What would be the reason for "throwing" them an equity stake? Many people believe this makes a person more dedicated to the company, which is absolutely false.
Equity should be given to individuals who are critical to the success of your company, individuals who are indispensable. Too many companies give equity to individuals who can be replaced once the company becomes self-sustaining. Equity shouldn't be given to "good" coders just because they contributed in the beginning. Equity should be saved for the "great/exceptional" coders that you may attract as your business grows.
The empirical evidence suggests startups don't work that way. All the most successful startups had great techical people from the beginning. If you don't have good technical people at the start, you never reach the point where you attract them.
I don't dispute that. What if you have great technical people in the beginning who happen to have no equity stake? A talented developer is a talented developer (regardless of how they are compensated)...equity doesn't make them any better, does it?
You don't think a founding coder is indispensable to your company? Are you saying that if this person decided, one week from launch, to quit, it wouldn't matter? If so, why have them on the team at all?
Web applications are a lot easier to develop. I think too many people are still applying methodologies that applied to more "traditional" forms of software development. If I have a good JavaScript hacker bail on me a week before launch, I don't think it would be extremely difficult to find another good JavaScript hacker.
If you are paying someone to work an 8 hour day, no problem just paying the programmer.
But if you want someone to work a practically unlimited number of hours as is most often the case then you are going to either need to pay the person to work two 8 hour shifts, hire additional programers, or give the programmer some equity in the business.
The only way I see this as possible is if you sit down with a "front end" graphics guy and create every page. Then have the programmer put the code behind it.
But beware the code that is written it will be hard for another programmer to pick up on. Everyone writes code differently and it is just suprising in one language how many different ways there is to create a solution.
There are too many other factors that come into play when it comes to selecting a good co-founder/equity holder. Things such as vision, rapport, dedication, etc. Equity/options are too compensate someone that you want in your company when you don't have the financing to pay them what they are worth.
I'd list such people under "suckers". YC doesn't provide enough money to pay anyone a decent salary, so anyone who isn't getting equity is being short-changed.
FWIW, no one is indespensible in a startup; some are merely harder to replace than others. I'll bet that "original idea" guys are getting equity even though they cease to be indespensible.