When should the founders lose majority control?

I've discussed ideas with hundreds of startups, I've been involved in about a dozen startups, my business is at $1M+ revenue. The bad news is, there is no good way to protect ideas. The good news is, in the vast majority of cases you don't really need to. If you're talking to people about your idea, you could ask them to sign an NDA ("Non Disclosure Agreement"), but NDAs are notoriously hard to enforce, and a lot of experienced startup people wouldn't sign them. For example, if you asked me to sign an NDA before we discussed your Idea, I'd tell you "thanks, but no thanks". This is probably the right place though to give the FriendDA an honorable mention: http://friendda.org/. Generally, I'd like to encourage you to share your Ideas freely. Even though telling people an idea is not completely without risk, generally the rewards from open discussions greatly outweigh the risks. Most startups fail because they build something nobody wants. Talking to people early, especially people who are the intended users/customers for your idea can be a great way to protect yourself from that risk, which is considerably higher than the risk of someone taking off with your idea. Another general note, is that while ideas matter, I would generally advise you to get into startup for which you can generate a lot of value beyond the idea. One indicator for a good match between a founder and a startup is the answer to the question: "why is that founder uniquely positioned to execute the idea well". The best way to protect yourself from competition is to build a product that other people would have a hard time building, even if they had 'the idea'. These are usually startups which contain lots of hard challenges on the way from the idea to the business, and if you can convincingly explain why you can probably solve those challenges while others would have a hard time, you're on the right path. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to set up a call. Good luck.

Convertible notes are by no means "earned." They are often easier to raise for early-stage companies who don't want to or can't raise an equity round. Equity rounds almost always require a simultaneous close of either the whole round or a defined "first close" representing a significant share of the raised amount. Where there are many participants in the round comprised mostly of small seed funds and/or angel investors, shepherding everyone to a closing date can be very difficult. If a company raises money on a note and the company fails, the investors are creditors, getting money back prior to any shareholder and any creditor that doesn't have security or statutory preference. In almost every case, convertible note holders in these situations would be lucky to get pennies back on the dollar. It would be highly unusual of / unheard of for a convertible note to come with personal guarantees. Happy to talk to you about the particulars of your situation and explain more to you based on what you're wanting to know.

It entirely depends on the kind of business you have. If you have a tech startup for example, there are pretty reliable assumptions about each round of funding. And a business plan and financial forecasts are almost totally irrelevant to sophisticated tech investors in the early stages of a company's life. Recent financial history is important if the company is already generating revenue and in that case, a twelve-month projection is also meaningful, but pre-revenue, financial forecasts in tech startups mean nothing. You shouldn't give up more than 10-15% for your first $100,000 and from that point forward, you should budget between 10-20% dilution per each round of subsequent dilution. In a tech startup, you should be more nervous about dilution than control. The reality of it is that until at least a meaningful amount of traction is reached, no one is likely to care about taking control of the venture. If the founding team screws-up, it's likely that there will be very little energy from anyone else in trying to take-over and fix those problems. Kevin is correct in that the board is elected by shareholders but, a board exerts a lot of influence on a company as time goes-on. So board seats shouldn't be given lightly. A single bad or ineffective board member can wreak havoc on a company, especially in the early stages of a company's life. In companies outside of tech, you're likely going to be dealing with valuations that are far lower, thus likely to be impacted with greater dilution and also potentially far more restrictive and onerous investment terms. If your company is a tech company, I'm happy to talk to you about the financing process. I am a startup entrepreneur who has recently raised angel and VC capital and was also formerly a VC as part of a $500,000,000 investment fund investing in every stage of tech and education companies.

Better than a cover letter is to actually proactively DO something to help them. It'll show them not only that you've researched them, but you're passionate about the startup and worth bringing on. A man got a job at Square early on for just making them a marketing video on his own (back before they had one). Since you're a web designer, design a stellar 1-pager that's targeting their message to a particular niche. Something they could use on social media or something. If they're like most startups, they're not interested in reading cover letters. They're interested in passionate individuals who can add value to the organization.

You will find a lot of different views on equity split. I haven't found a silver bullet. My preference/experience is for: 1. Unequal shares because one person needs to be the ultimate decision maker (even if it's 1% difference). I have found that I have never had to use that card because we are always rational about this (and I think us being rational is driven because we don't want a person to always pull that card cause it's a shitty card to pull) 2. When it comes to how much equity, I like Paul Graham's approach best: if I started the business by myself, I would own 100% of the equity; if xxx joined me, he/she would increase my chances of success by 40% (40% is just an example) at this moment in time. Therefore, I should give him/her 40% of the company (http://paulgraham.com/equity.html) 3. In terms of range, it could go between (15-49%) depending on the level of skill. But anything less than 15%, I would personally not feel like a cofounder 4. Regarding salary and the fact that you will pay him/her, that's tricky but a simple way to think about it: If an outside investor were to invest the equivalent of a salary at this exact moment into the startup, what % of the company would they get? (this may lowball it if you think the valuation is high but then again if you think you could get a high valuation for a company with no MVP, then you should go raise money) One extra thing for you to noodle on: given you are not technical, I would make sure a friend you trust (and who's technical) help you evaluate the skill of your (potential) cofounder. It will help stay calibrated given you really like this person.