No offense, but this sounds a little shady. Maybe part of this is because it's a game project, which inevitably suffer from terminal optimism. But if you really have a working product and more paying users than you can handle, why are you looking for another "founder". This is the time where you should be hiring employees, not splitting the business risk.
I could raise more money and hire an employee with the expertise I need, but then I would dilute and give shares to the investors. I would prefer to dilute by giving shares to another programmer who wants to work with the start-up mentality and really shoot for the stars. If I don't find someone with the skills the project requires who wants to work largely for equity soon then I will hire someone to do it as an employee or a contractor. Didn't PG write that you should always prefer employees who want as much equity as possible?
This statement made no sense at all. How do you know when he should be "hiring employees" versus "splitting the risk"? "Shady"? Did you look at the site?
Startups routinely bring in founders later in the game. If he's solo now, and not bringing in enough money to cover a full salary, he's looking for a cofounder for his business. There is a huge difference between your business and your code.
Snort existed for years before Marty turned it into a startup, and except for Marty, nobody on the team that IPO'd the company was there at the beginning.
