Should I set up a formal advisory board, or just keep a few informal advisors?
At pre-seed and seed, skip the formal board. A named 'advisory board' with titles and equity grants creates admin, expectation, and cap-table clutter you do not need yet. Keep three to five informal advisors you actually call, each for one specific gap (hiring, GTM, fundraising). Formalize with paper and equity only when an advisor is doing real recurring work or their name genuinely de-risks you to investors. In India especially, watch that an advisor title does not become a way for someone to claim credit later without contributing.
Go deeper
3 resources, 3 link-checked.
📄 Article
✓ Link checkedFreeIntermediate
This is the guide that maps advisor structure to your exact stage, so you can see why a formal board is overkill at pre-seed. It says pre-seed relationships should stay informal and ad-hoc (median 0.21% equity, no titles), and that structure and paper only start earning their keep at seed when an advisor is doing recurring GTM or fundraising work. It gives real numbers (up to 0.8% at seed, 2 to 4 year vesting, one-year cliff) so you can tell a genuine formalization from cap-table clutter.
This is the canonical, industry-standard answer to 'how much equity for an advisor', a free, ready-to-sign template used by tens of thousands of founders and advisors a year. It replaces awkward negotiation with a simple grid that maps engagement level and company stage to an equity number and vesting schedule.
This is the India-context piece for when you actually grant an advisor equity, written by a firm that does startup ESOP and advisor-equity work here. It walks the granting mechanics an Indian founder hits (board approval, a documented grant agreement, stock options vs RSUs, 4-year 25%-per-year vesting) and flags that advisor grants should stay in the 0.25% to 5% band across the whole pool. Read it before you promise equity so an advisor's title cannot become a later claim on your cap table without documented, vesting-gated work.
