[solve]

I'm a bit confused by the reasoning too. We worked 18 months and put in 10s of thousands of our own money in the early stages prior to our first funding - a hefty negative salary. I think the only logical way to view it is that the founders are ALWAYS taking a loss relative to what they could earn elsewhere, for the life of the startup, until the very late stages or acquisition.

Very few investors will see it as a good sign if the founders pay themselves at or above their market rates, or if they do at or below the market amount of work. Likewise, the competition will punish startups for slacking or blowing money too fast.