Not based on who had the idea. Based on what each person brings from here — and it should be a real conversation, not a reflex 50/50.
The founder equity split is how ownership is divided at the start. It should reflect what each person contributes from this point forward — commitment, risk, and the work of the next four years.
It is not payment for the past.
Because the most common formula — 'it was my idea, so I take 70%' — values the wrong thing. Ideas are cheap and the next four years are not. A co-founder doing equal work for 30% will notice, and resentment compounds quietly until it is fatal.
And because an unequal split needs a reason both people accept out loud. An unexplained one poisons the partnership slowly.
Two founders. A had the idea and built a prototype over three months. B joins full-time from day one.
A proposes 70/30, on the basis of the idea and three months of work.
Count forward instead. Over the next four years both will work roughly 8,000 hours. A's head start is about 400 hours and an idea that will change substantially anyway. On a forward view, the contributions are close to equal.
A more defensible split: 55/45 — recognising the head start without pricing it as though the past outweighed the future.
Factors that legitimately justify a difference: who is taking more financial risk (leaving a job versus staying employed), who has committed full-time versus part-time, who brings capital, and who brings a decisive network or reputation. All of these are forward-looking. 'I thought of it' is not.
The default 50/50 with no conversation is also a mistake — it is chosen to avoid an awkward discussion rather than because it is right. Sometimes it is right; it should still be discussed.
The bigger mistake: splitting equity without vesting. A 50/50 split where one founder leaves in month four and keeps 50% for ever is the single most damaging thing you can do to a young company.
Third: not writing it down. Verbal equity agreements diverge in memory, always in the direction of the person remembering.
The next four years dwarf anything that happened before. Value the future contribution.
Financial risk taken, full-time versus part-time, capital contributed, decisive network. Not who spoke first.
Both propose a number and explain it. The explanations matter more than the numbers.
55/45 or 50/50 is fine. Splits like 52.5/47.5 signal a negotiation that should have been a conversation.
Four years, one-year cliff. Non-negotiable. See the next lesson.
A founders agreement, signed. Not an email, not a memory.
After the conversation and the trial project, before incorporating or issuing shares.
Do not decide this in the first week of knowing someone. It is one of the few genuinely hard-to-reverse decisions available to you.
Apply this to your own startup in My Full Journey (free account).