JohnnyD10

I've been working for a startup for about 7 months now for free. I was on board at the first day, with the other founders, and before any execution on ideas had begun. By most yardsticks, this would make me a founder. I'm a technical one (engineer), and yet I'm treated as an employee, with 3% equity, and stock that vests over 3 years. Just to get this, I had to push pretty hard and negotiate with the CEO and COO.

I've gone back recently to try to change the equity share I get, as I understand that most founders on board when I was typically receive anywhere from 10 to 30%. The CEO tells me that I'm the only one with any kind of agreement, and that makes me far better off (?!). Apparently, no one else has anything in writing. When I ask the CEO about this, he not only seems to hint that people will be very tied to the company (executives will have a 6 year vesting schedule...what?), but he seems to think that if anyone gets any equity now, it will turn off investors. He wants to maintain majority control in the company so no investors can come along and "steal" it from him, AND he wants to set aside a monstrous chunk of equity for these investors. He hints that employees will get some "down the road", but that this is an effective way to get investment. He tells me I'm too "9 to 5" security focused (which, honestly, I do tend to be. I'm working at a full time "real" job while doing this near full time).

He keeps telling me that I need to trust him and that he'll reward people down the road based on their performance.

I'm all for tying incentives to actual performance, but this is just so loosely defined.

Am I being overly rigid not trusting this guy while proving my worth? The more I read, the more it seems this is a bogus deal. Is there any merit to this idea that having employees with equity will turn off investors?

Does this make any kind of sense, or am I completely a chump?

Thanks