Ouch. I hate to say this, but your co-founders are scr~~ing you. They're putting you in a holding pattern waiting for the company value to inflate, and starting to give you a pseudo-salary to muddy the water, so that they can claim that you're just an intern-turned-employee whose salary is lagging given the slow sales.
Why did you pitch a 2% equity per month deal? You clearly don't have anything left to prove - you've already demonstrated your value and commitment to the project, not least by working unpaid.
I would negotiate hard for 33%. It's on your co-founders to give reasons why your share should be less - and here I would only accept hard contributions from them (e.g. cash they contributed to the business, additional months they spent on the concept), not soft contributions like "ideas" or "contacts".
Given he started later - only in the Spring (he found them when they already existed and they launched in July so they must have made it quite a long way before he arrived) a lesser share seems reasonable especially as to make something someone will have needed to put up real cash in addition to free effort.
But you are right that he should push for a response.
The other thing that seems to be missing from all these founder/first employee discussions is the level of influence over business direction and strategy. Some people may not want these responsibilities but others would relish the involvement.
Why did you pitch a 2% equity per month deal? You clearly don't have anything left to prove - you've already demonstrated your value and commitment to the project, not least by working unpaid.
I would negotiate hard for 33%. It's on your co-founders to give reasons why your share should be less - and here I would only accept hard contributions from them (e.g. cash they contributed to the business, additional months they spent on the concept), not soft contributions like "ideas" or "contacts".
Good luck!