Forget about making money. You don't know what it is, you don't know what it will be, you just know where it should be.

Wait till people knock your door.

Benson, WHAT? You expect the leader to take care everything? Share burden with your team. They are there and they have the right to know and listen and do. Things goes two way. There are many responsibility of leader, the main one is to decide priority and to set course.

It is an issue of shareholding structure. It is a real world issue. Your concern is already out of topic, and that is not my concern. My concern is that you don't get it, seems always seeking to repeat mistakes. And I am not sufficiently impressed with your "accelerator" too although you mentioned twice, pardon me. And what is beyond my ability, not my concern.

Heard of SP Setia, Phileo Bank, Twitter, MySpace?  You need to study deep about shareholding structure before we really goes deep into it.

After all, I got no interest in your venture or whatsoever. One advice: From your reply and others, I can tell straight into your face you are just novice. You need to improve it, a lot.

Maybe there is no chance we meet, but if there is, just chat about this and you will find out more. Anyway, do your homework first.

Dash, I thought you are saying about acquiring critical mass for users! :D

Anyway, try to have a look at "Diffusion of Innovation" by Everett Rogers. Critical Mass, man.

Us, is you and me. I don't believe in just me typing alone with all the content. Especially in this early hour and with things to finish.

You might see it as complain, take it as a real world stimulation. Every founder has to face with the same question, some neglected to look it seriously. Behind every company, there is a shareholding structure. This shareholding structure will determine our future, either succeed or fail.

When you people says founders are too greedy and should given more than 20% out. There is a golden thumb we should remember: The first people that you find will always get half of the preceding one (That's you). If you read this carefully, it means founder will get 66%, while the second co-founder will get 33%. Then another co-founder will get 1/3 of the 33%, 16.7%. And the equity goes on.

You started to complaining you got 10~20% from founders (business or whatever), might be it is a little less. Think this, eventually, the above law will certainly ensure the founder control as the founder retain 50....% of the equity. You will eventually ended up with 10% after dilution. Plus, there is need to be a captain to made all those hard decisions. Look back at Facebook, none founder remained there.

Now, does 20% non diluted equity sounds nice to you?

If you never cared about the vision, the company, the dilution, the future, go ahead with 50/50 rule. Alas, you can't even commit something that is worth commit, you should automatically be filtered out by your founder.

And don't think you are builder (designer, techie, business, everyone else) and you are the only one committing. You are one of the only many to commit into idea till a grown up product. It's everyone's baby. Justly, everyone should get a share, but there isn't a 150% equity for everyone.

Let me be straight. You told us that 50/50 is good. Now I tell you the poison is. You have to counter what the good or bad in it. If you want us to share something, kindly leave something too.

Chen, it's odd we get thumbs down for our comment. Really funny. Thanks for showing us the "quality" of the mass. Proof sighted for the environmental issue.

Good. 50/50 works yeah? How about this, there is one more founder, very talented, wish to join in, and you guys agreed to make it 33% each. This founder is smart, bringing in another smart guy, want equity too. In the end, there is 5 founders, each with 20% equity. Happy ending, right? Except that you soon find there is no captain in the boat ever dares to direct anything.

Tell me, how do you know you only have 2 founders in your whole boat? Not 3? Not 4? Not 5?

How about your early employee? You left them nothing? Having at least one co-founder is great, how do you justify others?

Back to your programmer thing. It doesn't applies only to programmers. It also applies to designer, finance, operations, users managers. How do you justify them, obviously you will need to pursue others for their dilution too, justify it in different stages of your company. Suddenly the business develop is important, and you need to find a co-founder, how to give out the equity? Still sticking to 50/50?

Yeah, put 10k for everyone is good. Buying them out 100k is even better. Tell me, how are you going to avoid that with your current thinking?

Most of all, if I am a talent, justify to me how that work. Instead of telling to YOURSELF how it works, tell others how that work.

My centre is giving way, my right is retreating, situation excellent, I am attacking. - Foch.

Alas, there seems to be not much sense in this room.

We try not to judge for the first 30 minutes before we understand people ideas and ability. Once we comprehend things, we should be frank and honest. We will not confuse bad is bad and take it as another word. If things is half baked cake, then it is half baked cake. I got my fair share of making half baked cake, expiring cake and now even baking a cake.

So, we don't tell ever our idea is suck. But we can differentiate whether things smell good or not. Thanks my team for reminding me there is such thing called "cake". We must shallow our "cake" or else we won't be able to comprehend anything.

To the people out there, if someone tell you your ideas or execution sucks, it means A) You did a good job to reach out; B) People cared for you. Now take care of bad news and move forward. The worst news we can get is no news at all.