I don't think this is entirely correct. Good investors understand that different founders have different situations. If you're 19 years old and your personal expenses are negligible, and you pay yourself $90K, investors will wonder if you're committed to your startup. But if you're leaving a $150K job and have a family, and you pay yourself $90K, your investors won't mind. Or else they shouldn't be investing in you in the first place.
It totally depends on how much you raise, who your investors are, who YOU are, etc.
But your salary needs are a reflection of your commitment. i.e. if 3 founders raise $500k, $50k salaries give them a ~15k/month burn rate fully loaded, approximately. $100k salaries give them a $30k/month burn rate fully loaded. The difference is the ability to hire two solid ppl.
Which do you choose? Is your lifestyle more important than 2 hires? Alternatively, if you don't need to hire any more, how much runway do you shave by making $100k across 3 founders?
Investors also want interests to be aligned. Low pay early on means that you're motivated every day for growth (because revenue or a larger investment round means a raise). They'd certainly rather see their money invested in growth than in founder lifestyles.
Of course, every situation/investor/founder is different... But yeah, expect to take a big pay cut.
Yaw, I did say "smallish" series A. If you're raising 4-6m, then founder salary really ceases to be a big needle mover in terms of runway. Certainly angel investors will often push hard on founder.
If you have less than a million in the bank, I think the question needs to be framed as "How much do I need to survive" and NOT "What did I make at my last job". If the founders aren't trying to dig deep here, then I'd wonder about their motivations (unless revenue was taking off). Lack of runway kills startups.
