You're
much better off paying that 35% equity along with a full salary than giving her 6% (or worse, 1%). Think about it this way: she is building your product. She can either put in high effort or low effort. If you give her 35%, there's a good chance she'll put in high effort, you'll both succeed, and your 65% is actually worth something. If you give her 6%, there's a good chance she'll put in low effort, you'll fail, and she'll soak you for your $6900/m sunk cost. If you give her 1%, it's almost certain she'll blow you off and you get the privilege of paying her $6900/month for nothing.
As happened here, apparently.
There's a whole chapter on this problem in most introductory game theory textbooks. The basic problem is that you cannot directly control how hard someone works, you can only give them incentives to work hard and then measure the output. Much as you'd like to say "She's a professional, you're paying her, she ought to do a good job," the real world doesn't work that way. She'll do a good job if it's worth her while to do a good job.
The economy is not fair. You can try to pretend it is and watch all your ventures get driven into the ground, or assume that you're going to get a raw deal sometimes and only take those raw deals when it leads to a sweeter deal later on.
As happened here, apparently.
There's a whole chapter on this problem in most introductory game theory textbooks. The basic problem is that you cannot directly control how hard someone works, you can only give them incentives to work hard and then measure the output. Much as you'd like to say "She's a professional, you're paying her, she ought to do a good job," the real world doesn't work that way. She'll do a good job if it's worth her while to do a good job.
The economy is not fair. You can try to pretend it is and watch all your ventures get driven into the ground, or assume that you're going to get a raw deal sometimes and only take those raw deals when it leads to a sweeter deal later on.