Equity partnerships.
For the right projects, we trade part of the fee for a stake in the outcome. Both sides commit. Both sides benefit when the product succeeds.
Aligned incentives, shared upside.
What we look for
A strong founding team that has thought hard about the problem and can defend their choices without getting defensive. Engineering that is core to the product, not a side function. Technical differentiation that matters to the end user. A clean cap table where adding a technical partner does not create a structural argument.
We only pursue equity partnerships with founders we would choose to work with even if the fee conversation were straightforward. Conviction is the prerequisite, not the consequence. If we are not confident about standing next to you in two years, we will recommend a fee engagement instead. That is not a lesser offer. It is a more honest one.
How it works
We reduce or waive our engineering fee in exchange for a meaningful equity stake. Terms are individually negotiated, documented simply, and structured so incentives stay aligned through launch and beyond. Equity vests over the life of the engagement, with a cliff that protects both sides if the project turns out to be something different than either party expected.
We take common shares or equivalent. No parallel classes with unusual rights. No board seats, observer rights, or information rights beyond what a reasonable early team member would have. The point is alignment, not control.
What you get
A committed engineering partner who cares about the long term success of the product, not just delivering against a statement of work. After launch, the intense build phase winds down and what remains is a quieter, longer relationship. Technical guidance, help hiring the engineers who will own the system, and occasional follow on work when the product needs it.
The equity keeps us invested in the outcome for years, not weeks. We show up like a partner, not a vendor. That distinction changes how decisions get made, how tradeoffs get weighed, and how much care goes into the architecture.
The projects that qualify tend to share a few traits.
The product solves something a real person will pay for, not something a pitch deck can sell. There is a clear answer to who uses this and why they switch from whatever they use today.
If the product's differentiation is technical, we can add enormous value. If the differentiation is sales or business model and engineering is a commodity input, equity alignment adds less and a fee engagement makes more sense.
We want to see a team that has been thinking about this problem for a while. Founders who can explain what they tried, what they learned, and what they would do differently. Commitment, not just enthusiasm.
We negotiate equity deals fairly. We think about how much work is involved, what stage the company is at, and what both sides are putting in. The goal is terms where nobody feels like they gave up too much.
Equity engagements take longer to pay off than fee work. The product needs a realistic path from engineering to users to revenue. Not years of runway, but a plan that connects the work to an outcome.