You're arguing that the CEO should get more because he has to deal with more annoying shit?
It's just as easy to argue that the tech co-founder should get more because he'll almost certainly end up working longer hours - and be the one who has to fix shit at 3am when the servers go down.
The fact is, both co-founders have their own reasons to feel entitled to a larger piece of the pie. But the truth is, it's all subjective - and nigh impossible to really weigh whose contribution is more important to the overall success of the company. Especially on day 1.
So at the end of the day, what really matters is the perception of fairness. If you give both founders an equal share, while both may feel that they are entitled to more of the piece, it's hard to argue that it's not a fair arrangement. Nickel and diming one of your co-founders will only create resentment down the road. And for what?
Annoying is the wrong word - had HN had the feature to edit/update I would :)
I do think the person who takes the title of CEO is risking more, and than deserves credit. They have their name in the public, and reputation on the line more than anyone else in the company (and, ideally should be up at 3 am as well, either fixing servers, or cold-emailing PR firms, or working on investment decks, blah blah blah). Greater risk deserves greater upside - while it's just a rule of thumb, I think Dan's post is a good starting point for the conversation on how to recognize that.
I hate that phrase 'reputation on the line'. Most companies don't have a CEO who have a reputation. And companies fail. So what, it's life. Stop worrying about a thing that's not actually valuable.
It's just as easy to argue that the tech co-founder should get more because he'll almost certainly end up working longer hours - and be the one who has to fix shit at 3am when the servers go down.
The fact is, both co-founders have their own reasons to feel entitled to a larger piece of the pie. But the truth is, it's all subjective - and nigh impossible to really weigh whose contribution is more important to the overall success of the company. Especially on day 1.
So at the end of the day, what really matters is the perception of fairness. If you give both founders an equal share, while both may feel that they are entitled to more of the piece, it's hard to argue that it's not a fair arrangement. Nickel and diming one of your co-founders will only create resentment down the road. And for what?