Out of curiosity, why do you specialize in developing MVPs for people with ideas, and how did you get into that type of work as a primary focus? Do you find that the work is more interesting than doing consulting jobs for more established businesses? Assuming you've found plenty of projects that meet your rules, do you have opportunities to become a co-founder, and have you considered them seriously?
I've done consulting, startups, and free work on side projects. At this point, if I find people and projects that meet my requirements, I'd probably prefer to become a co-founder and make a real go of it. I don't think I've ever taken a small amount of equity as compensation for substantial unpaid development work. Under those circumstances, equity is not tasty. I'd rather do well-paid consulting work or find a great team and go all in.
I actually also fix MVPs when they start breaking :)
Honestly, I just find working with startups and small companies in general to be more interesting, even though there is usually slightly less money involved. I got into this type of work by hanging around Hacker News and writing blogposts aimed at a hackerpreneur auidence.
It's amazing how many great projects you can attract if your writing is half decent and you have a good idea once in a blue moon.
As for jumping full in, yeah I'd love to eventually, but I've learned to be cautious and cover my bases first. Maybe when I have money saved up so I don't have to earn anything for months on end. Being young has its disadvantages.
I'm curious as to why the conversation about compensation for work done for "non-technical" upstarts is almost always framed as a binary "payment in equity vs cash" issue. Seems like there would be a huge market for MVP development by developers with a hybrid compensation model. (Maybe this is already common?)
For instance, a developer could quote Price X to non-technical co-founders to develop a simple, proof-of-concept MVP with an agreement to would receive Equity Y upon completion if the developer either (1) stays on for Period P or (2) helps the founders successfully land a more suitable, long-term developer to take over the project. The parties could even agree that Equity Y would be larger (e.g. 2Y) if the developer stays on.
Benefits to the non-technical co-founders would be (a) a proof-of-concept (or failure), (b) alignment of incentives with a developer to try hard, and (c) access to an insider to help find a permanent developer upon completion of the MVP if the MVP developer wants to exit (e.g. for a better opportunity).
The benefit to the developer would be (i) guaranteed fees, (ii) potential for equity (even if he exists) and (iii) flexibility.
More, a subsequent developer would have the chance to deal with someone who speaks his own language in the negotiation with the non-technical cofounders, and could avoid and annoying and/or exhausting translation of technical details.
An obvious objection may just be that non-technical co-founders never have money to pay for an MVP. I am far from an expert, but I would think that some do.
What you're describing is called vesting and is hopefully used by anybody doling out equity of their company.
The options for a developer in today's marketplace are such:
1. Technical founders who can offer equity only
2. Technical founders who can offer equity and money
3. Technical founders who can offer money only.
4. Non-technical founders who can offer equity only.
5. Non-technical founders who can offer equity and money.
6. Non-technical founders who can offer money only.
In either type of founder, the best option for a developer is equity+money, if they can afford a full-time commitment.
If the founder can only offer equity, this raises the stakes significantly and is a problem. Especially if the founder has overlapping skills with the developer. But the overlap of skills also breeds a certain camaraderie that is not to be ignored.
If the founder can only offer money, that makes it a clean [probably ongoing] contracting job with the flexibility to work on separate projects and whatnot.
The real problem with equity+money is that you are roped in full-time and tied down for an extended period of time. The reason I personally got into freelancing instead of having a normal job is that it gives me the freedom to change projects frequently - every couple of months. I advance quicker as a developer, grow my network quicker and my life is more interesting.
Knowing that I will spend the next 2 years working on a specific project is a very big commitment indeed and I want to be damn sure it's something I am extremely passionate about. (hint: this is usually reserved for my own ideas)
Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that I am happy taking on clients with no more than a few months' commitment and be certain that my bandwidth will always be filled to the brim for the foreseeable future anyway. In fact I am strongly thinking about expanding myself into a small team just to keep up with demand.
PS: there's also likely a bunch of legal and tax hassle in having my consulting company or myself be part owner of a bunch of other companies.
I've done consulting, startups, and free work on side projects. At this point, if I find people and projects that meet my requirements, I'd probably prefer to become a co-founder and make a real go of it. I don't think I've ever taken a small amount of equity as compensation for substantial unpaid development work. Under those circumstances, equity is not tasty. I'd rather do well-paid consulting work or find a great team and go all in.