Don't call someone joining your two-year-old, revenue-generating startup a "co-founder." They are a business partner joining a de-risked asset. Their equity stake should be far from 50/50, reflecting the significant value and progress you've already built, such as achieving initial product-market fit and revenue.
Related Insights
Co-founding a business is often harder than a marriage, yet receives far less diligence. The probability of two individuals maintaining perfect alignment on effort, finances, and vision over many years is incredibly low, making solo ventures statistically safer.
Don't default to a 50/50 split on day one. Instead, agree to formally discuss equity only after reaching a predefined milestone, like $10,000 in revenue. This allows you to base the split on demonstrated contribution and commitment, avoiding the resentment from premature, misaligned agreements.
Don't give away half your company to a "business person" who handles administrative tasks. A non-technical co-founder must possess and execute on the most valuable skills in a SaaS business: sales and marketing. Otherwise, they don't deserve co-founder level equity.
When an experienced founder starts a new venture based on their own vision, the equity split doesn't need to be 50/50. By framing it as 'my deal,' the primary founder can retain a supermajority (e.g., 80%) while giving a technical co-founder a smaller but still meaningful stake.
The founder's partnership allowed him to build a company without shouldering the initial financial risk. This "halfsies on risk" structure meant he never had true control or ownership, ultimately capping his upside and leaving him with nothing. To get the full reward, you must take the full risk.
The founder's number one piece of advice is to get the co-founder relationship right. While you can pivot ideas, raise more funding, or change markets, replacing a co-founder is incredibly difficult. A strong, complementary founding team is the foundation for overcoming all other startup challenges.
A 50/50 equity split should not be the default. The conversation must focus on what unique, "unfair advantages" each founder brings to the table. This could be a significant pre-built audience, a deep professional network, or personal capital. The idea itself is rarely worth any equity.
A universal ownership target is flawed. The strategy should adapt to a company's traction. For rare, breakout companies with undeniable product-market fit ('absolutely working'), a VC should take any stake they can get. For promising but unproven ideas ('could work'), they must secure high ownership to compensate for the greater risk.
When you need to fill a major operational gap, hire for the role (e.g., a COO) before immediately seeking a co-founder and splitting equity. This allows you to "date before you marry"—assessing a candidate's impact and fit as an employee before committing to them as a long-term partner.
Granting a full co-founder 50% equity is a massive, often regrettable, early decision. A better model is to bring on a 'partner' with a smaller, vested equity stake (e.g., 10%). This provides accountability and complementary skills without sacrificing majority ownership and control.
