(This is an anonymous account.)
I work with two other co-founders on a startup. We're angel funded, though our angel took an obscene amount of equity for the little money he put in (in the 10,000-50,000 range) due to something that happened before I started to work at the startup.
I joined after the first two founders, Austin and Michael, started to work on it. Michael recently quit another startup to work on this one. (these are pseudonyms.)
I joined as the developer/a bit of business. I was the sole developer and designer of the site, of course with Austin's and Michael's non-writing-code assistance. Both guys aren't MBA-touting douchebags looking for "a hacker to make their startup a success!" - they're very knowledgeable in technology and the web, as well as business/entrepreneurship.
I originally was to receive 20% of the company. However, Austin wasn't happy with receiving only 20%, and thus wanted 24%. That meant that my equity holding was going to be reduced to 16%. (We are incorporating soon.)
Michael's all for what makes everyone more motivated to work on the startup, and the team up to this point didn't have any major disagreements or conflicts.
I surely don't want to cause any conflicts at all, considering I'm the guy that recently joined. However, I think that I'm entitled to a bit more than 16%. 20% was satisfactory for me.
What do you think I do? Suck it up and accept 16% or try to receive more?
If you'd rather not comment here, shoot me an email at newsyc@spam.la.
Thanks in advance.
Important data points include:
- How long did they do the startup before you? Did they take more risk? Is anyone getting paid now? If they got it to the point of being angel funded, they've hit a milestone and might deserve a bit extra. I dunno why Austin would deserve more than Michael.
- What do they do for the startup? Is Austin valuable? Experienced? Expensive? Incredibly knowledgeable about the market you're attacking? If he's verifiably badass and is critical to the success of the company, he might deserve more. If he's setting aside a $250k gig, he's probably risking more than you and might deserve more.
- You're clearly valuable from a implementation angle... Is the startup solving a technology problem? Sure there's coding, but if you're building a niche CMS for dentists or something, technology isn't going to make or break you. Sales will.
On a higher level, my gut tells me that the team composition is off. Two guys who don't design or code and one guy (you) who does both? Totally depends on the type of business, but for many startups I'd wonder what they're doing all day for the first 3-6 months.