Ask HN: What % of equity is a technical co-founder worth?

50% no questions.<p>You need him or else you do not have a product. No product means no company.<p>No reasonable developer would take anything less than this...If they're going to be putting their energy into developing your product for the next 1-3 years (minimum) then you need to split the equity with them equally.

When it comes down to it, despite how you feel you're good at "business", if you find a good technical co-founder, you're going to actually be close to worthless (considering you get a really good tech co-founder, not just a programmer). Business is easy for smart people. It's mostly common sense, personality, and drive. Once you find a really good technical co-founder, chances are the answer to "Could this business survive without him?" will be "No" and "Could this business survive without me?" will be "Yes". Keep that in mind when you think about a ridiculous share like 15%. Start at 50/50. His shares can go up if he brings more to the table. Yours can go up if you learn to code.

Could he do this without you? Could you do this without him?<p>This is what I ask myself whenever I think of this question.

There is no single answer to this question - it's totally dependant on the relative value of your contributions to the company's success. Where is the secret sauce going to be?<p>If you're building a mass-market offering (eg. facebook or SAAS), then they are worth a lot. New crypto product? New search engine....time to pony up.<p>If you are in a space where sales and marketing is more important than technology (eg. a groupon clone or anything where you're reselling an existing framework), then I'd retain the lion's share of the equity. You aren't going to win on technology.<p>Are you putting capital into the deal or raising a large chunk of capital to get started? Are they drawing a salary of some sort? I'm not giving 50% of the equity away to an employee or someone who I'm otherwise supporting.<p>Finally, while this is usually a bad idea, what are the alternatives to adding a tech co-founder? Can you outsource? Use consulting help?<p>While the latter is usually an express route to total stupidity (most startups with outsourced development quickly become comical), if you could truly run the operation without a dedicated in-house tech person, I'd retain a larger share of the pie.<p>Finally - I disagree that "business is easy for smart people" - a good business person can add a lot of value to the team, particularly if you're targeting large companies. Many entrepreneurs make significant mistakes in their deals and delivery process that put their company at risk - a good business guy should be able to reduce those risks and accelerate the pace of execution.<p>And no..I'm not a MBA...I straddle the two camps (business guy who can code and codes a lot).

At first glance, I agree with most others that "the idea itself is worth 0%". Having said that, we all know that's not <i>always</i> true...there's a looooong list of ideas that were so brilliant at the time of their inception that - combined with good fortune and perfect timing - the initial crappy implementation had no real negative impact (hello, Windows 3.0, hello Facemash, etc.).<p>So your idea may be brilliant...probably not, but maybe so :-) If you have already prototyped it out, have a basic wireframe built, have a good business plan in place, and have some funding lined up (either your own or from some external source) I would say that a technical co-founder would be <i>at most</i> worth 20-25%. From the gist of your question, though, it sounds like you have an idea in your head and that's about it. If that's the case, you gotta find your co-founder and immediately agree to a 50/50 split...maybe give them a 6-8 week 'trial phase' just to make sure they aren't a total fruitcake and are going to bail out on you, then lock it all down legally and move forward from there.<p>What people are trying to tell you in the other posts is that HARD skills &#62;&#62; SOFT skills when it comes to launching a tech company in the very early stages. Look at your descriptions:<p>* "business-minded" - hard to quantify * "action-oriented" - every great developer on earth is this as well * "team-building" - if you were great at this, your first stop wouldn't be at Hacker News for advice on how to build a team * "selling" - I agree that this is actually a HARD skill - either you got it or you don't. If you have demonstrated track record in this area, this is your trump card. * "partnerships" - soft skill...mostly manipulating paperwork with lawyers at the end of the day * "strategy" - you will easily be splitting this one 50/50 with your technical co-founder<p>Meanwhile, a good tech co-founder is going to bring:<p>* Specific dev experience - hard skill * Knowledge of architecture and scalability - hard skill * Knowledge of SEO and online technical marketing - hard skill * Ability to augment his/her skill with other good tech people out there, selecting from their own personal experience or interviewing based on their own skills - hard skill (i.e. business guy has no hope of locating and finding these people, IMHO)<p>Sorry for the long explanation. Bottom line: you gotta go 50/50. If your guy is not worth 50% in your mind, you have the wrong person.

Sorry, but usually idea is worth virtually nothing. Having been a technical co-founder before and now the business founder, I've been on both sides of the coin. Unless you have actually built a profitable business before, it's very hard to justify the value that <i>you</i> bring to the table.<p>The technical co-founder already has experience and pretty much knows the issues he's going to face, and how he's going to handle them. If you haven't built a business before, then you do not know the issues that you'll face or how you're going to handle them. So his value probably far outweighs yours, even though it's your idea.

Just wondering if there's a bit more to this than the idea vs. execution argument. Isn't a terrible idea well executed as bad as a great idea terribly executed?<p>What about skin in the game? If one's invested more capital, or has given up a job earlier to do things like research, talking to customers or building a prototype, his risk is higher and shouldn't he be rewarded for it?<p>Wouldn't expendability matter? What if the business guy can get a good development team to build the product (there are shops that work for equity) more easily than the technical guy hiring a capable sales agency (there are agencies that work on commission)?

How many customers do you know? How close are you to potential customers? How much time can get your potential customers to spend helping you with the product? Now, take the ratio of the amount of time you can get potential customers to help with your product to the amount of time it will take your technical co-founder to develop the product.

I'm of the opinion that co-founders should split the equity as evenly as possible.

technical co-founder should get &#62;50%, he can build product without you, u cannot without a technical co-founder. If you are a marketing guy then try starting business like groupon that requires more marketing and sales talent than technical talent at its core. If the core of the product relies on building good web app/mobile app then technical guys don't need you, if the product is great people will come onboard without help of any marketing guys. This does not work in case on businesses like groupon, which relies on building partnerships with good brands, that where pure marketings guys should focus on building.

50% Unless you have cash.

85% Tech Founder, 15% Business Person. It's not the idea, it's the execution.