[dchichkov]

A 30k of 'salary per year' trade for equity should really get the same deal as the investors get. Assume that you take that salary and then invest 30k into the company.

Note, when you are investing money into company you are not getting any ridiculous vesting cliffs, you are getting a multiplier as a valuation cap and usually your invest in convertible debt, not stocks.

(as a side note, if you are a professional who can contribute from the first day at work with virtually zero effort spent on you to get you up to speed, you really should try to negotiate for monthly vesting with no cliff for all your equity.)

[rgbrgb]

Sure, in theory I agree with you but I don't think it's possible to calculate like that. We're talking about trading somebody's time and creativity for salary and equity paid out monthly.

As you point out, the deal structure is very different from a deal that would be made with an investor. I'm guessing the company wouldn't take a 30k check from an investor right now or agree to take 5 * 30k from a single investor allocated monthly over the next 5 years. Also, him having more equity will probably make him a more valuable/devoted employee so that needs to be factored in.

[dchichkov]

You are right, and yet, when the salary had been established it should be possible to talk about trading somebody's salary (money) for equity. And compare that deal with the deal that the investors investing money get. As it is possible to take that 30k/year salary and invest is elsewhere, on the terms that investors investing money get (convertible debt, valuation cap, etc).

Thinking about it as money allows one to make a prudent investment decision.

I'm actually surprised that YC people haven't streamlined that process of trading early-employee salaries for convertible debt. Current situation with early-employees equity really screws up a lot of early employees and in my opinion poisons the startup atmosphere in the Bay Area quite a bit.