Ask HN: How much equity to give board members of a startup?

52 points by andrewstuart ↗ HN
Say you've created a fresh startup at the beginning.

You feel you'd benefit from having a board of directors who contribute their expertise and have some stake in success.

How much equity to give them, if any?

33 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] thread
why to give them? sell them cheap so they are vested and make sure they have interest in your success.

otherwise its a probable waste

Unless they are the investor who owns significant shares, otherwise I don't think giving them board is a good idea.

Consider consultant maybe?

None. Board members are typically already owners, either by being founders or investors. Giving away more equity just to have one more person at the table is counter-productive.

As corporations grow larger and more mature, board members may be compensated, but that is typically cash.

Hi Andrew. I've been in the C level, advisory, and investor roles at early stage companies. I'm certainly not an expert compared to many who frequent HN, but I hope I can add a bit of value.

There's no need to give up a board seat. Normally your lead investors will be taking a seat, and it could cause you issues when you try to raise.

You want to recruit some advisors who can move the needle for you with complementary skills. Ideally you just pay them cash, however being early stage may mean offering equity instead. You can do this as a vested option purchase at fair valuation. You need to be clear on what you expect from them, and obviously they must also believe their effort is going to be worth their time.

Take a look at the FAST agreement to get a better idea of how to approach the situation. https://fi.co/fast

Yep, you can even have a concept of an “advisory board” if you want to bring structure and/or allow advisors to speak with authority in making introductions.

From what I’ve seen it can occasionally be helpful around the time when investors are demanding board seats to give an actual board seat to someone independent. Good investors will actually welcome this. But until it’s needed, you don’t need to overengineer giving up control.

Agreed on both points.

I've been an advisor for a number of companies in my career from pre-seed to late stage. The notion of not over-engineering giving up control is spot on.

If you even need an advisor (and you may not) then stick with the FAST template and don't overthink it. At the earliest stage an advisor can help you think critically about your product and introduce you to a lot of good connections, but you should reserve equity only for those who bring the most value.

Don't give anyone a board seat until or unless you're forced to at Series A or later. Absolutely do not give one up before then.

What you're asking about sounds more like a board of advisors, which some companies do have. But the general advice is you should never give someone equity for nothing. So if you want someone to be an "advisor," ask them to invest a small amount (e.g. a $5k SAFE) in exchange for an "advisor" title.

Do NOT give away your equity or board seats. That's just dumb.

> you should never give someone equity for nothing

Wouldn't you be giving them equity for their advice?

By having the advisor make a financial commitment to the company in addition to the advisor role helps align their incentives to be engaged with the company and give you valuable time.
> having the advisor make a financial commitment to the company

Right... by giving them equity. You don't need them to invest.

Board members should be investors or otherwise people with skin in the game. Shouldn't they?

What have I missed?

> people with skin in the game

Giving them equity gives them skin in the game.

It only gives them potential gain, no risk of loss. Incentives would be for high-risk play.
When you say "board of directors" do you really mean "board of advisors"? A board of directors has voting power to make decisions. A board of advisors just gives advice and helps make connections.
(comment deleted)
Thinking about this topic and putting in time / energy may be an indication you are playing house with your startup.

I believe PG has an essay that touches on advisers.

Could you elaborate? I’m genuinely curious if playing house in this context is negative. Also, what is PG?
Playing house in this context is negative. It means that you're/they're playing dress-up and tidying rooms without actually doing the meaningful and important startup work. PG = Paul Graham, the guy who started YCombinator and this forum. I don't know which essay he's referring to specifically, though.
“What is PG” He’s the founder of this forum;) Paul Graham, founder of ViaWeb and Y Combinator, his essays used to set the trend about how to think about entrepreneurship back in 2010, along with Kalzumeus (Patrick McKenzie), Joel on Software and many others. But that was back when people read blogs a huge lot, there was extremely high quality back and fourth, this art is fading a bit.
I believe this is the essay you’re referring to:

Before the Startup: http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html

It is, though I think he mentions advisers specifically in a different essay.

“Playing house” is something everyone interested in or already working on a startup should familiarize themselves with, be able to point out a teammate And seek to avoid.

Playing House activities are a hallmark of the rookie entrepreneur. I made these mistakes myself when I founded Gliph.

One reason to be particularly careful about this is there’s an entire class of professionals who do nothing but look for people playing house and offer the services for equity or cash that are not relevant to what make startups go.

They often hang around local non-valley startup incubators or angel groups. They are semi-retired people or in-between work themselves.

Lawyers love this type of “entrepreneur.” Because the meetings and attention drive billable hours and there’s always tax and legal work That can be found to be done.

None of these people have no idea what your users want. You’re supposed to figure that out.

If they have some gateway into your initial user base, they probably should be on the team and committed. Otherwise you should work on a different problem.

There are other ancillary activities to playing house that will disrupt your startup’s ability to succeed.

Listen to the podcast episode with Michael Seibel on the ycombinator podcast series. These problems often Are created by non-technical founders more often. Early stage, premoney, f&f or angel funded are the most vulnerable.

Some good advice has already been posted. I would suggest advisory board at most (be clear about the reason for inclusion of each person, carry no ballast, give them something to do), an option to take a 1st look at an early investment round (without defining price, which would be meaningless anyway at this point). Although dull and unexciting you may find your local equiv of NVCA, BVCA etc has some good documents to help you.

Most important of all is that an advisor should earn their spot. There’s no shortage of “room meat” who will happily sign up to “advise” a dozen companies while providing zero real value to you or your company. Good luck.

Early on you don't need a board. At Series A you probably need to give one seat to the investor.

You can have all kinds of mentors and advisors who don't need to be part of the board. You don't necessarily need advisors either. If you want to someone to help you with the company, it's best to hire them or ask them to become investors and that way receive the equity.

Equity is very valuable so you shouldn't be giving it out. People should earn it or pay for it. If you must really get someone then consider very small amounts, like <1%.

In most jurisdictions a board is a legal requirement for a limited liability company (equivalent) from the day you incorporate.
Go for mentors / advisor rather than board as others have said you only really need that for A or in preparing for A round.

For mentors / advisors you can give some uplift in their equity beyond what they will get for their investment (honestly they should invest something to have some skin in the game).

An exception might be if they are rainmakers in the industry your operating in and you need them to open doors, in which case link payment to success, I wouldn't give anything upfront. If they believe in you and your business they should take the deal.

If they're in a financial position to do so, have them angel invest in the startup. In general my experience has been expert angels add a lot more value than advisors.
Dennis Remix reminds us in “How to get Rich” to grimly hold on to control of the organisation we’re building.
You meant Felix Dennis, but to your original point, "How to get Rich" (and its follow up "The Narrow Road") drive home the same point. Maintain full control at all times. That includes term sheets with clauses that they will bring on an "independent" board member to settle performance-related issues (but really, they represent the investors). Fight nail and tooth for every equity point you're giving out. For a good case study, see Mark Zuckerberg, who would have been voted long ago if he did aggressively maintain control.
none, until you're years later or making a lot of $$$

but you do want advisors for now, and also to start testing some to be your own future board members when you vs VCs start adding them.

two types of advisors:

- angel investors. they will give you money, and on-demand, a bit of really smart advice. mostly tiny bits as part of your monthly internal updates and your less frequent syncs (if many). some might get more involved, but you won't know who!

- paid advisors (cash or equity). I probably wouldn't do yet as you don't know which you need, and an angel can help you figure that out (ceo coach, someone for tech vs sales vs marketing vs hr ...). cash or equity. if equity, look up advice columns. but basically, give less than you'd think and for 1yr (can renew next year, but make manual, not default) and for specific mutually agreed upon tasks and meeting schedule. especially early on as it seems here, you won't know who you need, so wouldn't go heavy here

- edit: third type is your senior staff. also get VPs who have done your current + next stages before :) but generally not until raised 1M

fwiw, it does sound like you would benefit from finding 1-3 senior startup-experienced angels (successful/serial ceo who have led seed stage + series a + m&a) to invest and help guide on basics. there are good answers here, but they're without context and thus prioritization & specialization. there are a lot of generic basics they can help save time on + avoid making timebombs + give leverage, and in turn , help you identify where you need specialists, and pragmatics like when & how, until you build your own intuition & recruiting process

> I probably wouldn't do yet as you don't know which you need, and an angel can help you figure that out

This really depends on the industry and how much internal expertise overlaps with the market.

You may very well need some targeted advice early on, and angels are a bit hit-and-miss, both in terms of engagement (unpredictable) and how their expertise really lines up with your needs.

If you do need short term concrete advice in a very specialized area, a consultant engagement(i.e. purely transactional) might work best. For something longer term, an advisor that might grow to something more concrete later (e.g. advisory board, actual board, exec, whatever) is probably better.

100% on consultants! esp. for advisory after funding, great way to both get steady bursts VP level help, and potentially, mutual trialing before bringing them on full-time ("director of X"s getting ready to go VP, ...)

re:specialists, i think the near-term + ultimate answer is "both". my reasoning was lacking an initial unicorn advisor, an experienced startup person should be in a better position to help identify the gaps, e.g., whether needing an insider, and if so, what kind of one in particular, how to find, how to vet, etc. In contrast, most insiders, unless they've actually started their own product company, are like the blind men and the elephant, and don't realize how tiny of a view they have. as a concrete example, if doing something like gov contracts, world of diffs between say an ex-general, an ex-agency-cto, an ex-procurement officer, an ex fed vp sales, etc., and each may be individually brilliant + connected to diff networks + appropriate for helping diff co's.

a wonderful thing is for most smart people, "the first meeting is free", so not hard to get great advice from prospective people on this stuff!

At the starting point the board is almost purely a fund raising source. Having been at a startup with a very powerful and genius board that was completely hands off, my answer would have to be equal to the help provided.
When I looked into this several years ago, the advice was to give .5% or so (on a 2 year vesting schedule) to advisors who were going to be providing value based on their expertise/networks.

I can see that this is an unpopular position here on HN, but wanted to share so it's clear that some founders do give small amounts of equity to early advisors.