SamanthaG

I have been asked to join a start-up recently and will be the 5th member. The original founders go back about 18 months and have up to now been the driving force behind the business. I have been offered a 2% stake with share options to 4%. This is the same as was offered to the 4th member. The 3 original founders each have 31% each. The remaining 3% is to go to certain other smaller investors.

This is a banking services/technology start-up and I am to be the legal and compliance director,I am a banking lawyer by profession.

My gut feeling is that I am not being offered enough equity here and that there is too much disparity between my % and the original founder's 30.1%. I had expected to receive nearer to 8%.

We will shortly be approaching angels/vcs for round 1 funding and the 3 founders proposals is that they will dilute their shareholdings for the VC etc and my stake will be protected from dilution at all stages.

Does this seem fair and equitable to you guys or am I being ripped off here? I have thought about it so much I can't think clearly about it at the moment. I am taking no salary and working for "free" in return for this stake, though I will get some salary though much below market rate probably year 2 or 3.

In one of PG's essays on this site he talks about start-up hackers often feeling as though they need a co-founder with "business" knowledge and then says this is not a fundamental requirement for a start-up's success. I have the opposite problem, I am a former lawyer (UK) currently looking at a start-up but feel the need for a "hacker" co-founder for my venture to succeed. I know nothing about software code etc. Am I doomed without a hacker to work with me and is YC the wrong place for me to be looking?