How does a contract engineering relationship differ from bringing on a technical co-founder, and how should equity be structured?

Question

Accepted Answer

Hi,

First, those books: https://marcrandolph.substack.com/p/i-have-no-idea-what-im-reading?r=3k7my

On your engineering puzzle, the distinction between a co-founder and a builder is massive. A co-founder isn't just a coder; they're the only other person who truly understands the existential dread you're going through. A builder just executes.

Using a contract engineer is a perfect way to test the waters. For a contract arrangement, equity should be minimal—and strictly tied to milestones. You don't want to hand out major cap table real estate before they've proven they can handle the early-stage chaos. The exact amount is going to be highly dependent on where you are. You want it to be large enough to be interesting to someone, but not so much that it's really diluted you if they dont work out. They is making sure that whatever you do for them vests over time.

If they deliver and scale with you, that contract can absolutely transition into a lead engineer role. That's when you vest them into a real equity package.

And no only could a contract transition to a lead engineer, the lead engineer can transition to a co-founder. You find that out based on whether the person is helping you solve whole business problems - and really engaging with you as a thought partner. But that will come naturally (if it comes at all) as the person gains familiarity with the problem you're solving.

Don't let investors pressure you into a quick hire. Rushing this is how you engineer a disaster. Start them on a contract, see if they can jump back and forth to solve problems, and let them earn the seat.