I find ideas come as you build it, so whoever is helping to build it is gonna evolve the ideas, so yeah starting at 0 from an idea, sounds fine

It's tough. I once saw a quote: Don't outsource your dream. Right now, I'm building my dream, and I wouldn't outsource it because I enjoy the process of building it. However, I would give 50% to someone with the skills I don't have if it came to it at some point.

An idea is really easy to come up with. If that's all I had, I'd be surprised if I could get anyone to build it even for 100% ownership.

Absolutely!

Ideas are a-plenty. It's who can do the grind to make them happen that takes the cake. If I can't put the execution down, I don't think I can retain equity (unless I'm paying adequate salaries, which is also a way of getting things done). IMO, what separates founders from thinkers is the ability to get shit done.

If you aren't able at all to build it yourself, it's quite a good deal IMO since execution is worth far more than an idea.

It all depends on the person who is building it. If they don't contribute to the product past the initial build out, they should not be an owner. If they don't share the vision for the startup and if you don't have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities + a buy out clause, then they should not be owners. If you don't execute on the idea you have 100% of nothing vs 50% of something, but in these cases you should really exchange something else (money, services, lending them your car on weekends, etc.) for the build out of your product initially instead of giving ownership to the best coder/builder. Just because they are good at building doesn't necessarily mean they will be good at leading. You can still give them equity if you want, but not 50% from the very beginning. "If you build it, they may not come", you will also need to market this, which takes money, so would that be another 20/30% equity? What about customer support? Sourcing? Sales? Would you be giving out equity for each one of these later? What if you need to raise money and the builder doesn't agree to give some of his equity up for the investors? Think long term and if you are going to give away 50%, make sure it is because that person is the best partner in the long run.

Oh God!!! NEVER

Would need to actually asset their value for the long term, quality & speed of progress, etc.

Ideas are dime and dozen. Making and building the product is not even the hardest part either, the real battles are in the launching, iterating, and marketing. If you are going to have a long term relationship with the builder, 50 sounds right, if not, no for both parties.

If they can build it entirely, and I need to spend no time on the business - absolutely. I am saving myself years of hard work, struggle and pain lol. Plus, it allows me to work on the next big thing.

Idea is not enough to achieve anything... Yeah it's important to think and find a solution about problem. However, if idea owners would not take an action about solution, dream won't come true. There is a difference between being entrepreneur and wantrepreneur :)

I think it really depends on the level of expertise that you bring. If someone is able to build it but you have overall commercial skillsets to help bring it to life than I think are entitled to more equity.

No..

For sure! At the idea stage, there's little progress / no execution that's been done. At the end of the day, it's all about execution. Especially if it's a tech startup, a builder will be the most important role

I am not sure if 50% is the right number. However, I want to call out one thing - The bottleneck in startups is always on execution, never on ideas. Hence someone actually executing the right way adds tremendous value. Next line is brutal prioritization when you have more ideas than you can execute.

It's depends on the person. Assuming they can "build it entirely", the right person would: 💗 Be passionate about the problem being solved. 👓 Resonate with the current vision and brings their own perspective. 🙌 Understand and value the Business Development efforts of the other no-technical founder(s).

This is not about percentage. It is about how much dedicated your cofounder would be to work on your startup with you. Do not split equity based on what a person brings on table, but rather split equity according to on how much equity when you give them then they would be willing to commit their time and energy into your startup. 100% of nothing is nothing. Best equity split is 50-50. Even if other cofounder brings less value to the table than you. See this video by ycombinator

50% Ownership are harsh words. Not to say it cannot or should not be done. But there need to be many considerations to making a move like this. And to me, it sounds like neither one of you is on equal footing. Those who say that ideas are a dime a dozen would be right. The world is full of ideas. Execution is the key to the success of any business. But execution is split into many parts. Software and Marketing being the two largest in my opinion. If you give 50% to software, how much is marketing going to get? The other half? Yet without marketing, you may as well build something only you will play with. The bottom line is that there are way too many things to consider to just give you more than a superficial answer. My advice? Think at least 5 years down the line. Your decisions today will shape your company 5-10 years down the line.