35/35/10/20 would be significant. The equity grant is treated as increasing the value of the founder's equity. The option pool is already a sunk cost toward employees.
I would say significant stock is at least an amount that doesn't make someone think twice about the package. If the founders are holding 80%, then everyone else is pretty much an employee not an owner.
There's nothing wrong with being an employee. There's nothing wrong with working below market rate in exchange for some equity. Just be clear that it's a job and the only way you'll achieve market rate compensation or above is with a significant exit, limited dilution, and good-will toward you on behalf of the major shareholders.
Employee equity is usually not significant as equity. It might be significant as compensation. That's more likely if it already has value and the offer is in terms of shares. If it's in terms of percent, then we are talking equity not compensation: we're talking about ownership and control of the business and shaping the direction of the company.
Is the value of 2% of a startup meaningful compensation? Probably not. See my valuation elsewhere in this discussion.
I would say significant stock is at least an amount that doesn't make someone think twice about the package. If the founders are holding 80%, then everyone else is pretty much an employee not an owner.
There's nothing wrong with being an employee. There's nothing wrong with working below market rate in exchange for some equity. Just be clear that it's a job and the only way you'll achieve market rate compensation or above is with a significant exit, limited dilution, and good-will toward you on behalf of the major shareholders.