The problem that most people have with this implementation is their salary numbers are quite low, and their equity numbers are quite low or zero.

You have to be very careful to avoid falling in the "build this for me and I'll share it with you" trap, because talented individuals get pitched this way all the time. In fact, you're going to get lost in their mental spam filter if you don't deviate from this stereotype immediately.

Whether you yourself feel this way or not, leading off with admitting you can't do what they can do by yourself, that you're willing to pay handsomely for their help, and that you bring a significant amount of value to the table yourself (not just money, ideas, vision, and a sense of ownership but the ability to raise capital, sell to people, etc.), will be the path to landing the best cofounder.

Co-found with a division of ownership on a vesting schedule. That way, if either of you bails, the other isn't stuck with a non-productive co-founder making money off your work.

And make sure both sides are bringing plenty to the table. The business/tech co-founding team is a great model (beats the heck out of most tech-led startups), but it should be fair.

Look at it this way... if you're willing to work on these terms with this business founder, could you work on the same terms with a different partner for better financial terms or chance of success?

Let's say the product was based around a mobile services app. For discussion let's say Uber for dog walking or Uber for X. What would you consider a reasonable salary and/or equity stake for Hacker to be interested. Assuming solid business model, marketing plan, all else equal.

If I was a recruiter in the bay area, I'd guess you could find some B-grade talent who could knock that out for about $80k/yr., and A-grade talent for about $150k/yr. There's a whole litany of variables here, like where the talent can live, exactly what you need and on what platform, how fast you need things done, and how many more people they can bring on and whether they can manage them effectively.

Mobile talent is extremely sought after in this day and age, particularly when you start adding essential skillsets for a successful startup.

If you up things to 50% equity, you might be able to take a small amount of the salary number away to attract the same pool of candidates, but not a lot.

Expect those salary numbers to drop significantly if you set up shop in other parts of the country (and particularly the world).

Roger that on the litany of variables. Super insightful response. Thank you.

Thanks to you I think the essence of this thread can be refined to: What financial (and/or other) consideration would a US-based Hacker, with mobile skill sets, require to team up with a CA-based Non-technical with an idea, business and legal chops?

"If prototype gets traction and scales..."

How is that going to happen if the business partner is working a day job and waiting for Godot?.

Products don't sell themselves. Customers don't provide their own customer service, etc. Having final say is just having a non-technical opinion, it's not a real commitment. A founder who puts up cash is nice, but not a substitute for sweat, and is best treated as a loan rather than exchanged for equity.

I am not saying the roses won't grow, but I don't see the scenario as ideal for either partner - the employee/employer relationship is well below ideal.

It sounds like you're more of a proponent of Hacker doing a work-for-hire or one off freelance project for a fee -- as a way to avoid the inherent employer/employee antagonism from the get go?

It's not so much that as that I don't see the structure of the relationship being entirely consistent with the intended outcome.

There's no expression of trust on the part of the business partner when putting up the money is the sole basis for having final say on technical matters. Don't get me wrong, it might work out fine with the right individual.

But there are two other reasonably likely scenarios:

() A gung-ho technical person who becomes frustrated by having their ideas and opinions overuled by a non-technical person. And in the original scenario, the non-technical person is not working flat out to make the product take off.

() A not so gung-ho technical person who is mainly collecting a paycheck until the money runs out. This may be a later edition of the first or someone who comes onboard with that idea - keeping in mind that the business partner plans on spending their time at another job.

It's not the money, it's the passive model of investment that to me makes success look less likely. Or to put it another way, why wouldn't the sort of technical person who can conjure up a product out of a text file want to team up with a business person who will sell a million of them before a line of code is written?

Or at least a business partner who is trying to sell a million of them before any code is written?

Being in it together really requires being in it at the same time or a track-record of trustworthiness.

Good luck.

Awesome points.

I've been in a similar scenario. I bootstrapped my first Startup. It failed, and I lost a lot of money. We developed (in Stealth) an amazing product in the "Ambient Discovery" space. We didn't call it that, but that's the buzzword that everyone started using. Anyway, turns out a few other Startups were developing in the same space (in Stealth). They executed faster than we did, and they had better connections. We were too slow, and other Teams launched / secured funding before we could. Ironically, it turns out that the Market never truly embraced the idea, and it kind of flopped. The timing was off. The idea itself was ahead of its time and the Market was not ready for any of these Products. Some Teams got funding, but I never heard about them again. One Startup made an exit (good for them!). Everyone was ahead of the curve. Everyone failed. Doh!

I don't really have any input about the plausibility of your hypothetical scenario (too many variables), but I do have some advice; Do not assume that you know what your customer wants. This is a harsh concept. Everyone loves their own ideas (myself included). But falling in love with your idea can become detrimental to product development. When it comes to the product, the Customer is King, not the Idea. If you can embrace this, you will become more effective at building your product. This lesson could have saved me lots of money on my first Startup. Instead of assuming things, validate with the customers (or potential customers). Do not leave it up to chance. Why am I saying this? You've laid out what seems to be a pretty "hands-off" approach to building the Product. I would recommend defining a relationship with your Developer that allows you to continually integrate customer feedback into the development process. This will likely result in a product that is more aligned with what the customers actually want, which should increase your likelihood for success.

Thank you. 100 pct agree. Hands-off was meant to convey respect for Hacker's process and craft of building out a MVP. As far as customer acquisition, feedback, service -- 100 pct hands-on. For some reason (most likely bad writing) my original post didn't convey that.

The idea would solve a personal pain point. And the MVP would test whether that pain point was felt by others. If not, failing fast is okay.

Relationship with Hacker is key to long term success. If Non-technical isn't plugged into the Hacker community, compensating them is a way to demonstrate seriousness. Skin in the game, so to speak.

Also, I'm speaking in broad terms -- Hacker and Non-technical -- for universal discussion. This scenario could apply to me at some point but I also deal with a lot of clients and associates that actively talk about similar scenarios at barbeques, dinner parties and conference rooms.

I don't have a confident road map to advise them on such a course and I'm genuinely interested in what this community thinks would be the best may to make this situation work -- for the sole purpose of launching a MVP -> shipping -> testing -> refining -> scaling.

The non-technical founder can afford to pay his partner a salary, yet is not an accredited investor[1]? And will also fund the business re server costs, design, marketing, etc.? If I were the developer I'd be very suspicious. If the non-technical person isn't offering time or skills either, I'm not sure what they're bringing.

This also sounds like doublespeak: "work without interference" vs "editorial/final say." Sounds like "final say" is still basically unlimited, and I'd rather get approval before doing the work than after!

[1] $200k annual income or $1m assets (sans house)

What could make this scenario less suspicious for you? Strike the phrase "final say." The intent was only editorial: "Hacker, everything looks good overall, but how about dialing it up a notch here or dialing it down a notch there." Non-technical wants to ship, not wrestle back and forth on minutiae. The idea is to collaborate around a common idea and then recruit customers, partners and investors. Collaborative not antagonistic!

Also, to clarify, Non-technical has savings and and investments and is willing to cash out and spend to build a MVP. Non-technical wants to found a business based on their original idea and then recruit talent to build out a company.

Is your take that such a scenario isn't possible? And that Non-technical should wait out and accrue enough wealth to qualify as an accredited investor and then just invest in a team to develop his or a similar idea? Would this make Non-technical less "suspicious"?

Hello! By "suspicious" I didn't mean to imply bad intent, just my doubts that you could offer a fair (i.e. competitive) salary (any benefits, or is it BYOHealthInsurance?), and also that you were sufficiently well-capitalized to fund the business. Underestimating the necessary capital is one of the leading causes of startup failure. So if I were approached with an offer like this one, I would not be getting my hopes up until I heard some numbers, and I would be skeptical unless I saw a pretty thorough plan with budget and expected revenue. But that's just me: I am fairly risk-averse.

Re "final say": Ultimately if you're business partners with someone you both need to be happy. And you both have an incentive to balance polish with shipping. Still, if you were a client and not a business partner, and you were paying me on a fixed bid, I'd want a spec up front, not at the end. (If you were paying me hourly you can have all the revisions you want.) If we were potential partners, I'd be asking myself what the risks are if you prove difficult to work with--for instance, what am I giving up to join the venture? And do you have a history of managing software projects that would reassure me you're capable and reasonable? (Any recommendations from developers you've worked with?)

In any case, I wish you good fortune on your venture!

Your points are duly noted and your insights are much appreciated.

Yes, this is probably one of the few scenarios I would partner up with a business guy (salary and equity), the others being a proven track record, or equity in a profitable co.

It's not a recipe for success. Ditch the uncommitted non-technical guy, find a fully committed partner (technical or not) and build your own thing.

Whether the non-technical guy is uncommitted depends on how much money he is sinking in. Ponying up the cash is an important and legitimate contribution.

If someone drops 1 mil to build an app I would say they are committed.

I'd offer that $1M would qualify Non-technical as an accredited investor. I'm more interested in the person who can offer up, say $100k, give or take, to support the development and launch of a MVP.