I'm trying to understand the incentive for engineers to join a startup as a 'founding engineer'. To me it seems like taking on all the risk that a founder takes (pre-pmf, pre-revenue, etc.) but getting a small fraction of the equity that a founder gets. The risk-reward ratio doesn't seem to add up.<p>Looking for insights from folks who have been in the startup world.
- Total control<p>- Chaotic, energizing environment<p>- Massive payoffs<p>- Low-stakes politics, informal environment<p>- Being around an eclectic group of people<p>You face basically no risk, not in any real sense (like being sued, owing someone money, public embarrassment). You might have opportunity cost, but really only if you're a Bogglehead/Blind/FIRE-type, in which case you probably wouldn't pass the culture fit anyway. Someone people thrive in these early environments.<p>It's like weighing the pros and cons list of skydiving "Hm... I get only 14 seconds of pleasure for every 2 micromorts? I could get 2 minutes of pleasure from roller coasters for only 0.5 micromorts!" As soon as you bring "risk-reward ratio" into the conversation, you've lost the plot.<p>Watch Halt and Catch Fire (cheesy show, but in a good way), read about the very early SpaceX days when everything was going wrong.
I personally think it makes perfect sense for FULLstack "founding" engineers (that are not expected to become CTOs) to be cofounders with significant equity, assuming of course they're joining at a risky phase (saying that as an experienced engineer who's both a freelance and solopreneur).<p>Other than that, it's all a function of compensation/risk, safety, and effort compared to their other options.