There is no single answer to this question - it's totally dependant on the relative value of your contributions to the company's success. Where is the secret sauce going to be?
If you're building a mass-market offering (eg. facebook or SAAS), then they are worth a lot. New crypto product? New search engine....time to pony up.
If you are in a space where sales and marketing is more important than technology (eg. a groupon clone or anything where you're reselling an existing framework), then I'd retain the lion's share of the equity. You aren't going to win on technology.
Are you putting capital into the deal or raising a large chunk of capital to get started? Are they drawing a salary of some sort? I'm not giving 50% of the equity away to an employee or someone who I'm otherwise supporting.
Finally, while this is usually a bad idea, what are the alternatives to adding a tech co-founder? Can you outsource? Use consulting help?
While the latter is usually an express route to total stupidity (most startups with outsourced development quickly become comical), if you could truly run the operation without a dedicated in-house tech person, I'd retain a larger share of the pie.
Finally - I disagree that "business is easy for smart people" - a good business person can add a lot of value to the team, particularly if you're targeting large companies. Many entrepreneurs make significant mistakes in their deals and delivery process that put their company at risk - a good business guy should be able to reduce those risks and accelerate the pace of execution.
And no..I'm not a MBA...I straddle the two camps (business guy who can code and codes a lot).
But how do you draw the thin line between a "Facebook" startup and a "Groupon" startup. There's so much between those two realities.
I have the same question as the OP.
Also... How can you differentiate between a technical entrepreneur and a coder? Because I'd really be willing to give lots of equity to the former, but none to the latter.
If you're building a mass-market offering (eg. facebook or SAAS), then they are worth a lot. New crypto product? New search engine....time to pony up.
If you are in a space where sales and marketing is more important than technology (eg. a groupon clone or anything where you're reselling an existing framework), then I'd retain the lion's share of the equity. You aren't going to win on technology.
Are you putting capital into the deal or raising a large chunk of capital to get started? Are they drawing a salary of some sort? I'm not giving 50% of the equity away to an employee or someone who I'm otherwise supporting.
Finally, while this is usually a bad idea, what are the alternatives to adding a tech co-founder? Can you outsource? Use consulting help?
While the latter is usually an express route to total stupidity (most startups with outsourced development quickly become comical), if you could truly run the operation without a dedicated in-house tech person, I'd retain a larger share of the pie.
Finally - I disagree that "business is easy for smart people" - a good business person can add a lot of value to the team, particularly if you're targeting large companies. Many entrepreneurs make significant mistakes in their deals and delivery process that put their company at risk - a good business guy should be able to reduce those risks and accelerate the pace of execution.
And no..I'm not a MBA...I straddle the two camps (business guy who can code and codes a lot).