That’s why founding engineers are such a raw deal. They take just as much risk as the founders but much less payout. Also on the hook to do most of the work.
It's complicated. The difference between a founder and founding engineer - I think you mean early employee - is pretty big. The fact that they are getting a "raw deal" in your POV should inform you that the equity grants are not related to risk.
This is coming from someone who programs for a living: contrary to what you are saying, the money guys take too little equity. The money guy being, the reason you are raising money at all, and not just dipping into your own savings.
No. The engineers build the product. They do the actual work. Let's flip your 'reason' around: the engineers are the reason the VCs have a job at all, since the entire point of the job is to find people building big things and funding them to get a cut. They are secondary, the actual product -- and the people who build it -- are what matters, morally and economically.
An engineer in a non-startup also builds the project and does the actual work. It's not special. Trading money and opportunity cost for sweat is what makes it equity.
Also, engineers are not the reason VCs have a job.
> Also, engineers are not the reason VCs have a job.
How are they not? VCs don't actually do any productive work - they don't make anything.
In order to invest in something, anything, you need the something. That's a pre-requisite for investing. Engineers build the product. Doesn't even just apply to software, this applies to everything.
actually the big scam is the difference is not big at all, alot of times founding engineers do more work than the CEO. a startup that raises 1-3 million alot of times doesnt even have revenue. sometimes its just that the founder went to stanford, hires engineers, gives them lottery tickets, and hopes they produce good work
