Ask HN: Is Sweat Equity a viable idea?

No. So many reasons.

* Even people with long-term commitments to companies have a hard time valuing equity.

* In order to value equity, you need to be given access to confidential details of the company.

* It's legally expensive to give different kinds of equity to people, and every time you do it you create a small (or worse) amount of risk.

* The rules about employee equity are well-tested and understood. The rules about equity offered like this aren't.

* Offers for exchange of equity for in-kind services could be construed as unlawful solicitation of investment (I don't know, and am not a lawyer).

* Having a web design contractor on your cap table is going to make it harder to close VC rounds.

* Screwing up your equity grant to a web design contractor so that they have an effective veto on a VC round is going to make it impossible to close VC rounds.

* Employee equity vests.

* At good companies, a grant of equity has uncapped upside. Nobody buys web design for "potentially unlimited dollars".

* So now you also have adverse selection to deal with: the companies whose equity is available in a program like this won't be the Airbnbs and Dropboxes of the world.

* Similar barter programs (based on pure in-kind/in-kind exchanges) have been tried for decades (the ISP I worked at in the '90s was involved in one) and they appear to reliably fail; once people start to believe their contributions aren't fairly valued, a vicious cycle sets in.

I wouldn't just not participate in a program like this; I wouldn't work for a company I found to be participating in one.

I took part in this program http://www.inventorium.org/events/swequity-wales-spring-2013... that runs in Dublin and now North Wales. Great idea - check out the info packs to see how it works. No reason that you could not harness something like this to an accelerator or incubator program for a share in the best ideas.

I'd have thought the reverse was the bigger part of the problem: finding skilled people willing to work solely for a small slice of equity in a company they had no influence over.

I'd expect there to be an adverse selection issue too (startups most likely to succeed are those that can pay for stuff with revenue or investors' cash; startups most likely to hand out equity like candy are those that know they're struggling)

Our firm has played with that concept already for number of years. However in the last few years with easy access to funding capital it begs the question why exchange equity for those items? It would seem then that this would appeal to startups only if they can't get funding, which raises another question on how viable of a startup is it?

With that said, we concluded that a capped equity swap might be acceptable. As in where the service provider would be rewarded with up to 4x to 8x their or the industry normal business rate for the services they performed. So a lawyer normally charges $150/hr. He choose to only charge $50/hr in exchange for the other $100/hr be some sort of investment. At payout time he could receive upto $800/hr for services performed. Payment could be tied to any company metric. This would be much easier to track then say % share of equity.

The equity in business is pretty low until it generates cashflow or contains assets(traction). For businesses with traction their are already established ways of getting investment capital. Also, I don't know if it makes sense for a business to dillute it's equity for one time costs. If it were to be done, you would need somekind of project plan to profitablity. And some kind of model were nobody puts in effort until all the peices are in place. And how does the project adapt if people don't deliver on their promise?

I'm never a fan of giving up equity in exchange for short-term services, rather than a long-term commitment from an employee or investor.

I wonder if you would have success attracting high-potential startups. It would seem that most of these are able to raise money for the needs you talked about, especialy since it appears easier than ever to raise a small seed round.

As a result, you could be left with mediocre to low-quality startups only which threatens the model.

I would be willing. I'm a believer in multiple streams of passive income so this idea is a natural byproduct. I would love the opportunity to do small pieces of development work in exchange for micro equity. In this way, I could 'invest' in a dozen different startups and thereby make some long term bets. In todays climate, one win in ten has enough ROI to cover the cost of the other nine.