Anon account here.
I'm currently a co-founder in two-man startup. The idea, though not revolutionary, was my co-founders, and because he's older, more experienced, has more connections, etc: he has the vast majority stake in the company. He is also the "CEO" while I'm a "CTO".
A lot of posts, including the article, come from the prospective of the person with the greater equity; and I get that from their POV, it's a better deal.
But being the guy with less than his half of the stake, I gotta say, unequal equity is making me about ready to quit.
We both earn $0/hr. We both spend all our free time busting ass for the company. We're both "in it to win it", at least thus far.
But who gets to make all the important decisions, even when I'm pretty sure they're bad? Him. Who gets the biggest payoff? Him. Who's the guy in the spotlight? Him.
So even though we're "co-founders" and we work an equal amount, he gets all the glory, cash, and can steer the ship (for good or bad).
Obviously I didn't know it'd turn out this way when I started, but if you're out there thinking about bringing on a "co-founder" to boss around at 25% and $0/hr, think long and hard about what makes you worth doing that for. Which isn't to say those things don't exist: If you can raise money, sure, you're probably worth more than half. But be realistic: If you can't come up with reasons you're worth 75% of the company, then it's only a matter of time before people you've convinced otherwise realize that as well.
FWIW, I "fell" for the same "well we should have someone who can make rapid decisions steering the ship" line as well. Baloney. You do that when you can PAY people to do what you want. Until then you're just a couple dudes making negative money. I'll risk a 50/50 gridlock in decision making over having someone tell me what to do everyday at "my" company any day.