And if the OP knows more about how to market than you do, you'd actually need to spend more than that to market your idea as well as the OP will.

I hold dual degrees in computer science and business management. I think I can do my own marketing, thank you. If not I know people who will for a small fee.

For the record the reason why I made that point is that I would personally value that $3k at higher than $3k because I do not have marketing experience. And yes, there are lots of people who will take a fee to market for me - but I'm not in a particularly good position to know whether I'm getting a good one.

Think about it, what does he know about the product? Nothing. You'll spend a lot of time explaining it to him in full details and then he markets those details to strangers, parroting your words.

This is great, out-of-the box thinking by the OP.

Anyone who want to do something like this (esp. the OP and jacquesm), please connect with me on LinkedIn: Terrence C. Yang, mentor, angel.

If the OP is full of it then I'm pretty sure he/she will be hung out to dry and someone may be out a month and will have gained $5K. Whether that was an acceptable risk to take is up to them.

I referee youth soccer. My son plays. I see the way the business works.

Dreams of college scholarships fill the trough at which professional youth coaches feed. All premised on the misconception that women's soccer is like college football. But women's soccer is only allowed 12 scholarships - football has 88.

The general conception of what it means to own stock in any business tends to be closer to the Microsoft secretary and the Google chef than to an approximation of $zero. My biggest criticism of the offer is the anonymity of the investor serving as precedent for similar offers to the HN community. My concern is that such offers feed off people's dreams.

The deal is structured in a way almost guaranteed to require additional investment should the project gain traction. There's no runway by design and once the technical founder's position is diluted, he can be swiftly booted to the curb.

If hmexx is a moral paragon, I cannot offer a better deal. If he isn't, I can offer no deal at all. And that may be a better one.

Hmexx is putting his money on the line.

You counter with paranoia and paternalism.

If hmexx wouldn't be $55000 short on what two months are worth to me I'd happily take him up on his offer and I don't think I'd need you to look out for me on the contractual side of things.

If there is just one person here whose price tag is a bit more modest and who is sharp enough to come back here to ask for some guidance during the negotiation phase or the review of a contract then that person has all of HN to back them and a ready pool of counter offers in case the OP is full of it.

No deal may be a better one. But those that make it into the big leagues would agree that being stuck in youth soccer is not the end of the line for everybody.

Maybe, hmexx has structured his offer without considering the ramifications of 50% stake as an incubator. I'm somewhat inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. No level of ethical intensions makes 50% equity make sense either for entering or accepting a project into an incubator.

50% equity is what investors demand to keep an enterprise from dying. Flowers are appropriate for a first date.

And of course the founder has a way of getting more runway without becoming a minority shareholder: put more money in.

If hmexx can conjure traction with $3k and little further effort, then entry into his incubator could make sense, even for a person with the resources to develop the project on their own, at least from the standpoint of logical possibility.

Is it good for hmexx's investment to structure a deal likely to produce problems for the counterparty after two months? I guess that depends on whether one believes that fast failures should be total and lead to abandonment or partial leading to adjustment.

A safe strategy for the counterparty to hmexx's incubator option is to produce a minimum MVP and go passive, letting hmexx do all the heavy lifting if he wants to move the project forward.

What I see is that a 50-50 incubator split doesn't align with the interests of either party. It disincentivizes the developer from seeking to raise outside capital, and should the developer choose to pursue outside capital, the developer must use some of his limited runway to do so.

It seems to me that the sorts of developers for whom hmexx's offer is most appealing are those less likely to raise additional capital on their own - i.e. if they were able to raise capital on their own, they might not need hmexx (a talent which conjures traction for $3000, aside).

If hmexx's role includes providing the additional capital investment after runway, then the deal is actually structured to give him majority control. If hmexx's role includes raising capital from third parties, then he is going wind up a minority shareholder anyway, so why not maximize the incentive for the active developer to develop?

If I fail, I'll get another job after a couple months and do it again.

I'm tempted to make a similar counter-offer as a developer. Do some customer development, prove the market, and I'll fund your product development and build it for you.

Logical assumptions lead to a plausible candidate - but that's not identity.

What you would do or not do is entirely besides the point.

If you don't think this is a valid proposition, then don't do it.

Who cares who the 'candidate' is, I'm sure that anybody that enters into this will want to know before they commit to two months work, at the same time I don't begrudge the OP his choice to be anonymous for the time being.

Being (in)famous can be an upside or a downside when making an offer like this.

There are a few toxic names in the start-up scene and I'm sure that google will be able to turn up enough red flags based on name alone in those cases.

I got for the 'chess' business deal, strategy, tactics, planning, thinking ahead of the competition, sacrificing time and pieces to advance that pawn or take key pieces and then win the game. No bluffing, just out-thinking and studying book moves. Chess in 12 dimensions actually.

If the OP is worth his salt in the marketing game is the big variable, he believes he is good enough to warrant a $8K outlay, more than half of which goes to his co-founder to cover their time.

I've seen people study chess book moves for half a lifetime and still not be able to play a half decent game of chess. All I have to do to throw them off is play (1) b2-b4 -

50% of an MVP + cash to cover for your time + a co-founder to boot + $3K in marketing budget for your MVP is not a bad deal by many standards, and if you end up not liking the deal you can take your toys and go home and the OP is the loser.

He's betting that it works, not betting that he can screw you over.

What makes YC successful is baking pies.