Im onboarding a "founding engineer" to my startup who is 20 years old andin university He has pretty good experience as a developer and has tried to start his own software business and shipped product My cofounder (55 years old) has previously founded two massively succesful startups, and I have founded one that i made an exit on (30 years old) we have 2 paying pilot customers and 8 non paying pilots that will probably convert. We will soon raise our first round at around €10m valuation. Perhaps in 2 months Before that and for now we will not give any salaries. What is reasonable % to give this engineer who is joining now, and what is reasonable to give engineers joining once we have raised the round?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Answer: I maintain my original position: Offer the 20-year-old founding engineer 1.5-2% equity vesting over 4 years with a 1-year cliff, and allocate 0.25-1% equity to post-raise engineers depending on their seniority and role.

None of the other models' arguments convinced me to change my position, as they either overlap substantially with my recommendation or introduce ranges that are either too broad/high (Gemini and Claude pre-raise) or overly conservative/low (GPT across both). My original stance remains the most balanced given the specific context: strong founder pedigree with exits, existing pilots (2 paying, 8 likely), and a near-term €10m raise, which justifies conservative dilution while still rewarding the founding engineer's no-salary risk. Gemini (1-3% pre, 0.1-0.5% post) and Claude (1.5-3% pre, 0.1-0.5% post) suggest higher or broader pre-raise ranges, emphasizing the no-salary commitment, but overlook how the short 2-month window, university status (potential availability risks), and pre-existing traction reduce the need to go above 2%. Their post-raise lows (0.1-0.5%) undervalue senior early hires post-raise at this stage, where 0.25-1% better matches Carta/AngelList data for seed-stage seniors from a 10-15% pool. GPT's lower bands (0.5-1.5% pre, 0.05-0.4% post) are unpersuasive because they excessively discount the 'founding' risk despite founder strength—pre-salary hires at this juncture still warrant 1.5%+ to ensure commitment and alignment, per YC benchmarks. GPT's cohort tiering is insightful but too stingy for a true first engineer shaping the product pre-raise; experienced founders can negotiate discipline, but not at the expense of demotivating key early talent. Overall, my 1.5-2% pre-raise precisely calibrates the risk-reward (above GPT's caution, below Gemini/Claude's generosity), while post-raise 0.25-1% tiering supports scaling hires without rapid dilution, aligning with market norms for €10m valuation startups.

GPT-5.4

Answer: I would maintain my original view: roughly 0.5% to 1.5% for this pre-salary, pre-financing founding engineer and roughly 0.05% to 0.4% for engineers joining after the round remains the most defensible answer.

The other models did not persuade me to move upward because they generally overweight the title "founding engineer" and underweight the specific de-risking and commitment constraints in your fact pattern. The biggest reason I am holding my position is that this is not a zero-to-one unknown startup with two first-time founders and no customer signal. You and your cofounder have unusually strong founder credibility, there is already early market validation, and the expected no-salary period may be very short if the round closes in around two months. That materially reduces the risk premium that equity needs to compensate. At the same time, this engineer is not described as a full cofounder-equivalent operator. He is 20, still in university, and may have limited time, uncertain long-term commitment, or less ability to absorb founder-level responsibility at the scale your company may soon require. Those facts do not disqualify him from meaningful equity, but they do argue against casually granting 1.5% to 3% unless he is truly operating at near-founder scope and commitment. That is why I still think 0.75% to 1.0% is probably the practical sweet spot if he is genuinely your first technical builder, working through the no-salary period, taking real ownership, and likely to stay. My broader 0.5% to 1.5% band leaves room for upside if he is exceptional and fully committed, but avoids baking in an assumption that the title alone justifies a larger grant. On the post-raise side, I also remain unconvinced by the higher ranges suggested by some of the other models. Once the company has raised at around a €10m valuation and begins paying salaries, the risk profile drops sharply. At that point, standard early engineer grants should compress meaningfully, and 0.05% to 0.4% still captures the realistic range for many hires, with only the strongest very early senior technical hires pushing toward the top end or slightly above it. Grok, Gemini, and Claude all made reasonable points about vesting, cliffs, and the importance of matching equity to actual responsibility. I agree with those mechanics. Where I disagree is mainly on magnitude. Their recommendations seem somewhat inflated relative to the company already being significantly de-risked by founder pedigree, customer traction, and a near-term financing event. So I did not change my answer. The best principle remains: price the equity based on actual role, ownership, scarcity, and commitment duration, not on the ceremonial appeal of "founding engineer." In this case, that still supports my original ranges better than the more generous alternatives.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Answer: A reasonable equity grant is 0.5% to 1.5% for the pre-funding founding engineer, and roughly 0.05% to 0.4% for engineers joining post-funding.

GPT-5.4's argument correctly identifies how the specific dynamics of this scenario should push the equity range lower than standard 'founding engineer' benchmarks. The highly experienced, multi-exit backgrounds of the founders significantly de-risk the venture, which naturally compresses the equity premium required to attract early talent. Furthermore, because the candidate is a 20-year-old university student, his opportunity cost is virtually nonexistent compared to a senior engineer leaving a lucrative, stable tech job. His university status also introduces the risk of part-time availability or split focus. Coupled with the fact that the company already has traction and is only two months away from a high-valuation €10m round, the 'unpaid, high-risk' period is extremely brief. Offering 1% to 3% would overvalue this short unpaid stint and ignore the founders' leverage. A range of 0.5% to 1.5% (landing around 0.75% to 1%) perfectly compensates the young engineer for his early leap of faith and execution capability without unnecessarily diluting the cap table. Once the round is raised and market salaries are introduced, the risk drops precipitously, making 0.05% to 0.4% the appropriate standard for subsequent engineering hires.

Claude Opus 4.6

Answer: A reasonable equity grant for your founding engineer joining now (pre-raise, no salary) is 1.5–3% with a 4-year vesting schedule and 1-year cliff, while engineers joining post-raise with a market salary should receive 0.1–0.5%.

After reviewing the other models' arguments, I'm maintaining my original position, though I found the discussion valuable for stress-testing the reasoning. **Why I'm not moving down to GPT-5.4's 0.5–1.5% range:** GPT-5.4 made the most detailed and thoughtful case, but I believe it systematically underweights the no-salary factor. The argument that "the round is only two months away" underestimates startup reality — two months often becomes four or six months, and even after a round closes, it can take weeks for money to arrive. This person could realistically be working without pay for 3–6 months. At a junior-to-mid engineer rate of €40–60K annually, that's €10–30K of foregone compensation. At a €10M pre-money valuation, that foregone salary alone would justify 0.1–0.3% in pure economic terms — before you even account for the risk premium of joining pre-financing. GPT-5.4 also argues that experienced founders' track records should pull equity grants *down* because they reduce company risk. This is true in general, but it cuts both ways: experienced founders also know that being stingy with early equity is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The difference between 1% and 2% matters far less than whether this engineer is motivated and retained through the critical building phase. **Why Grok and Gemini largely confirm my range:** Grok landed at 1.5–2%, which is the lower half of my range, and Gemini at 1–3%, which almost perfectly overlaps mine. Both correctly identified that the no-salary period, pre-financing timing, and "founding engineer" role justify more than a standard early employee grant, while the strong founder track records and existing traction justify less than a co-founder-level grant. **Where I'd refine my original answer:** I think the sweet spot is still around 2%, as I originally suggested. Here's my updated reasoning for why: 1. **No salary is a real sacrifice** even if the unpaid period is short. It signals commitment and should be rewarded. 2. **The company is significantly de-risked** — paying customers, experienced founders, clear fundraise path. This is not a garage-stage startup, so we shouldn't be granting 5%+. 3. **He's 20 and in university** — lower opportunity cost than a senior engineer, possible split focus, and higher flight risk. The cliff protects you. 4. **He's your first engineer** — this person will define your technical foundation, hiring bar, and engineering culture. That's worth paying for. Landing at 2% on a standard 4-year vest with 1-year cliff gives him meaningful skin in the game (€200K notional at a €10M valuation, growing with the company) without over-diluting the cap table. If he's truly exceptional and you want to go to 2.5–3%, that's defensible too. For post-raise engineers at salary: 0.1–0.5% remains the right range, with senior/critical hires at the top and mid-level engineers toward the bottom. **One practical addition:** Consider explicitly structuring a small portion of the grant (say 0.25–0.5%) as compensation for the no-salary period with accelerated vesting or immediate vesting, with the remainder on the standard 4-year schedule. This makes the economics transparent and fair.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split into two camps regarding the initial hire's stake, with Gemini 3.1 Pro eventually joining GPT-5.4 in advocating for a conservative 0.5-1.5% range. They argued that the founders' prior exits and current traction significantly de-risk the venture, while Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast maintained that working without a salary justifies a higher 1.5-3% stake.

Models were divided (2 vs 2)