[Edit 3:14PM 12/6/13:] This would ideally enable a startup to several people working on it, without needing to give them arbitrary amounts of equity in advance. Also, the startup would not need to hold out for that one "can do everything" tech cofounder, and can instead have many people slowly chipping away at the problem (even if they don't have tech skills, but say, are learning and care about the problem the startup solves.)
They could get a similar amount of the company, but this would be measured dynamically, with GitHub (it's a tech startup) and basic Excel for ideas (spreadsheet approved weekly or so among FT. PT people not involved in idea aspects, or recompensed up-front.)
As for everyone's shares, they would all (PT or FT, even the example girl who helped with graphic design) would understand up-front that there work is going into a single entity. That is, if and when outside investors acquire equity of the company (say 7%), the "collective's" 100% falls to 93%.
My main concern is what effect you guys think this would have on ability to attract outside investment. Or even enter something like an accelerator. Assuming, any problems you see with the model can be overcome (I'd like to hear those too, in the context of the main question.)
As I understand this model is similar to a "grunt fund", but I was only referred to said term yesterday, so am looking into it.
(PS - not sure, but are ?'s automatically inserted into the "ask" section of HackerNews? Wasn't sure how to do that.)
