We offer competitive salaries, and we're definitely a startup. Founders expect poor compensation from startups, at least in the first years. Everything else is a matter of negotiation.
Is "we" Matasano? Maybe I'm missing something, but my immediate reaction based on the website would be to put it into the category of "consulting firm", not "startup".
Our consulting business funds two FTE devs. We haven't taken a dollar of VC, we have two nice offices, we pay competitive salaries, we offer health insurance and a 401k, and we can turn out products whenever we want. I don't know what you'd call our company, but since you've never made payroll, I'm not sure why I'd care, either.
You're right. We didn't give up 6% of the company --- one year in, the equivalent of 4-8 rock star employees, or a CEO --- in exchange for what a single developer bills out in 2-3 weeks. We therefore do not meet Colin Percival's stringent standards. I see now that "startup" is actually a handicap measure, and not a description of a business ethic.
By the way, we launched product today. Obviously, we don't much give a shit about our website at the moment; our "real" website is the blog.
Where does the money for those salaries come from? Profitability? Funding? If these guys are funded enough to pay salaries and haven't worked out the equity issue, I'd be concerned. If it's profitable enough to pay competitively, will the founders necessarily be seeking a liquidity event?
What I think is, Chicago people should be getting lunch together on a regular basis. Getting drinks once a month worked beautifully --- www.sockpuppet.org/chisec, this is ~30-40 people reliably --- let's set something up for the middle of the day.
Our office is upstairs from the best coffee shop in the loop, and I'll happily buy anyone who comments on HN coffee any time. My contact info's in my profile.