Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.

Precedent and models for 100% equity available via initial offering?
Founder makes available 100% equity, but uses a reasonable amount of the proceeds to pay him/herself a salary (or wage) and from that salary invests in the same initial offering to acquire shares for him/herself.   I see several problems.   What is a reasonable salary?   Also, this leaves the door open to the following scam:  Founders say that they are going to follow this plan.  However, instead of buying shares, they simply quit after being paid the salary.  They use knowledge gained from this business to start a competitor.  Investors are left holding an empty company.   Tax consequences.  The founder would pay income tax on the salary.  By contrast, if the founder instead sells shares, that would be capital gains tax, which is lower in many countries (e.g. the United States).   Why would I want to invest in a business where the founders don't believe in it enough to take a significant equity stake?   Consider the Amazon.com example.  Jeff Bezos makes a minimal salary, around $80,000 a year, less than many of his employees.  But he has a substantial ownership position.  If the company doesn't make money, he won't.  Would investors really value the stocks with a P/E of 232.10 in 2016 if they didn't trust him to make the right long term decisions?   It's also worth noting that most initial public offerings (IPOs) are not made when the founder is the only employee.  A single employee company instead looks for private investors, often called angel investors.  Companies generally don't go public until they are established in some way, often making money.  Negotiating with angel investors is different from negotiating with the public.  They can personally review the books and once invested tend to have input on how the money is spent.   In other words, this is mostly solving the wrong problem if you talk about IPOs.  This might make more sense with a crowdfunded venture, as that replaces a few angel investors with many individuals.  But most crowdfunded ventures tend to approach things from the opposite direction.  Instead of looking for investors, they look for customers.  If they offer a useful product, they will get customers.  If not, they never get the money.   Beyond all this, if a founder is only going to get a fair salary some of the time, then why put in any sweat equity?  This works fine if the company looks valuable after a year.  What if it doesn't?  The founder is out a year of sweat equity and has nothing in return.  That happens now too, but the possibility of the big return offsets it.  You're taking out the big return.   I don't think that this is good for either founders or investors.  The founder trades a potentially good or even great return for a mediocre return.  The investors trade a situation where both they and the founder benefit from a successful company to one where they benefit a lot more than the founder.  That's not good for either side.