Ideas are cheap, execution is everything. Actually getting liquidity for equity compensation is a function of the execution of the team, not me as an individual. So the real question of how much to pay yourselves as founders is "what makes you all get along and feel worthwhile?" so that you can maximize your productivity.
Like equity, founder salaries are a major source of dispute, and if the business takes too long to reach market rates then it becomes a source of tension. That's why I think relying on low salaries as a business model is a bad idea -- the business should be focused on sustainably paying market rate ASAP, which should mean that the business has revenue or customers incoming steady and growing.
I would argue that as a rule below market salaries means the business is unsustainable and has not found market fit. Founders can (and often do) still choose a lower salary when it makes sense to them.
Yes, ideas ARE cheap but good ideas are very expensive. Hell, YC was giving away some ideas for free yesterday. But I don't think any of them were good ideas and respectfully, I don't think your successful track record as a technical founder could save AI for Communicating with Dogs or Social Network for Children regardless of the amount of VC dumped in or your founder salary. They just aren't good ideas.
Myself, I don't think execution is everything. It is a lot but you can't execute a mediocre idea into a success.
If I'm wrong about that, and I could be given my technical bias, then I'll rephrase that to if you can execute a mediocre idea into a success then anyone can and it just becomes a lottery. Been there and I won't revisit there.
BTW, we are talking about initial salaries. If your startup is killing it then you can dictate your terms and your funders will still say thank you.
I would have thought great founders would have realised this before wasting time on a bad idea. I have never understood the logic behind working on something bad just on the hope you will pivot to something good later.
Like equity, founder salaries are a major source of dispute, and if the business takes too long to reach market rates then it becomes a source of tension. That's why I think relying on low salaries as a business model is a bad idea -- the business should be focused on sustainably paying market rate ASAP, which should mean that the business has revenue or customers incoming steady and growing.
I would argue that as a rule below market salaries means the business is unsustainable and has not found market fit. Founders can (and often do) still choose a lower salary when it makes sense to them.