The really hard thing is marketing and closing big clients.
There are a lot of "tech businesses" that are actually using pretty pedestrian tech. What they are _actually_ doing is business model innovation with an underlying tech platform. Often, that tech platform can be commodity or relatively simple tech. There are other startup propositions, though, where the tech _is_ the thing, and if you get the tech right, then some of those other things end up being secondary (not irrelevant, of course) just not primary. This is assuming that you really have punched a hole thru the door with some amazing deep tech breakthrough, which not every company is doing, contrary to what they may claim.
There is a YouTube video [0] (which goes back to 2019) that does a pretty good job of making this point. Well, much better than I can.
To be fair to your original point: you're right that marketing and sales are hard. I'm just adding the subtlety that there are some tech businesses where the tech is _also_ hard, and perhaps even harder.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1DlZWfI6rk&ab_channel=YComb...
My point is - asking "how did they do it without a CTO" is weird, they are hiring a CTO to do it, and they're bringing their business experience and funding - valuable stuff that a tech guy probably finds annoying. The number one suggestion on this forum is to sell before building and when somebody does it, users get wide eyes?
If it is a) "Right, I've had this braingasm, and you need to build it, and for the privilege, you get 5% of the company!" versus b) "Right, I've had this idea, done some market validation, lined up our first 3 customers, and now we need to do some technical feasibility and put a team together to build this, and as CTO, I need a 50/50 founder, what do you say?" then I will pick b) over a) every time.
To be fair, those scenarios are cartoons on purpose, but I just wanted to make the point by highlighting the extreme cases.
As far as "sell before you build" goes, I think that really does depend on the problem you're solving. If it's a tech-powered business model innovation (where the tech is a commodity), then we are in 100% agreement. If the tech is a bit trickier and you need to show something special before funding (let alone clients), then I take a slightly different tack.
I'm not sure I get the last point about wide eyes, but I suspect it's immaterial to the bigger point.
Of course the real gotcha is that there is no 'idea, market, sales strategy' that will be perfect, and the work is finding out where those ideas are wrong and fixing them. The lessons from my successes and failures says it is only worth doing that as a founder, because the failure risks are both high and unpredictable. Time is expensive, so spend it where there is both risk and reward, not just risk.
startups are about the work
this is why they don’t belong in start up land
running and working in a start up requires a certain type of insanity
this individual is not a fit
If the founder views you as replaceable, then why not work at a big tech which would pay you dramatically more? Successful startups are not often populated by the irrational.
Ultimately, this individual needed someone to shape and build the core of their product and the net of a series B would have been at most a wash compared to current employment.
For example if they're in SF and they're hiring a senior first engineer that would maybe make 250k elsewhere, and they're offering them 125k, and they would take the classic 7% for 125k, then 7% is a good starting point. (Of course if they already have the YC investment, then that would go down dramatically)
If that equity vests over 4 years, then frankly maybe 28% is a better starting point.
But what's fair isn't really relevant. What's relevant is what the market demand and supply is. If there's some dolt who would happily take 1.5% as a first engineer ("founding engineer") for a $125k salary cut, then the founders would be idiots not to take that deal. And frankly, if that $125k salary cut gets them their dream job, then maybe they're not even dumb for doing it.
Good capitalist businesses buy at the cheapest price they can, and they owners focus on balancing competing resources (control, dividends, ownership, status, information, etcetera...). However: people run businesses and people are not rational economic actors.
A good question is: what amount of equity can you negotiate? What do you have that will convince owners to share their ownership with you?
If you are negotiating with VC, then I think the game board and the rules of the game are already rigged against founders and employees. VC sets the rules and the mileau to play the long game, and employees are lucky to get a few leftovers.
You can be a founder or join a self-funded startup, that will give you a better chance of "fair" treatment, especially if you have the skills to join people that have high integrity.
In theory if you can marginally add 10% to the business value you should be able to argue to get some amount of that. However measuring an individuals effect on a business is usually really difficult (even consultants or businesses that specialise in increasing value usually only capture a tiny percentage of the value they add).
Also different people bring different resources to a business, and anyone with a monopoly on a resource can negotiate for more shareholding. There are idealistic economic theories for how people should bid in multi-party negotiations. Note that even though multiple people may each increase the value of a business by more than 50%, that doesn't mean each should get 50% of the shares (and obviously can't if more than two want >50%).
Generally if you need to ask for shares then you have already lost the game. Either found a business and put yourself in charge, or have something the owners want and demand ownership.
Disclosure: made small amounts of money as part of a self-funded startup joining high integrity co-founders. I've had little experience of VC funded companies or employee shares. Our SaaS business was doing something we'd done before and it was started decades ago when things were "easier".
Who raised the money that the company is using to pay salaries? When investors put money into a seed company, they're largely betting on the founders' perceived skillset and previous experience (or other bona fides like education).
One thing that most people don't realize is that being a founder means that you're inextricably tied to the company for its lifespan. Losing a founder is terrible optics and can be a death sentence for a startup. Regardless of the actual reason, every subsequent investor conversation will involve an explanation of what happened.
If you want more equity, you should ask for it! And you definitely shouldn't take a job where you'd feel under-compensated! But realistically, if you want a "founder-level" equity, you have to start your own company.
I always just assumed that the Entrepreneur, Founder & CEO had come up with an amazing idea like "build an startup (Ai probably) that makes a lot of money" and got some funding - but don't know what software is, don't know how to code and isn't really sure what Ai is does or can be used for; so need someone to put the pieces together to execute their vision with (for) them.
Opportunity to get in the ground floor with a future Unicorn - must have 25 years experience, Salary $25,000, 2% equity with 5 year lock-in.
First employee is always a sucker
So I am not sure it's that easy.
Of course, the idea is to keep the same work/life balance one would have at a more established company.
It’s Baby’s First Labor Exploitation.
Unless the company hits unicorn AND your shares become liquid (secondaries don't count—you generally won't be able to sell enough shares to make a meaningful dent), you'd make just as much or more at a FAANG firm with way less risk.
Of course, I say this while not at a FAANG firm, because I prefer startup type work.
So you would get paid like at another company but get equity on top and it's not a good deal? How comes?
If it were truly market rate (total comp not just base salary) then sure, it's a good deal. How likely are you to find that in an early startup? It must be pretty close to zero percent chance. But if you find it, sure, it's good.
You'll still work harder and be more stressed but it'll be a different learning experience which is always nice.
That's what makes the early startup scene the only thing available for some.
Maybe you'd lose our on some tiny perk/benefit but that's not always the case.
So I'm not seeing what's wrong with this deal with the only caveat that the engineer has the experience not to overwork/burn out.
The startup can go bankrupt any moment, thats a big deal. You get crappy perks, often poor benefits.
At least with a startup you are going into it knowing that you have a higher probability of thing going south financially. With a big company, you might not get any warning at all.
Titles obviously don’t transfer back to big companies, we had plenty of ex-cofounders and CTOs hired into the same junior roles as anyone else who could LeetCode.
OR....you could just become a founding engineer by actually founding and keep 90% of the equity. You can get that salary with an equity raise, its worth not being the low-person on the totem pole.