Before considering what investors may think, which may or may not be relevant, consider how you will operate up to the time of outside investment and ownership. It is always wise to avoid 50-50 splits and splitting equally among four also allows deadlock when an important decision can only be made by a vote.
Someone is probably the leader and providing for one person to cast a deciding vote in the event of a deadlock among the four partners is wise when you want to run fast.
But even more, setting the proportions at too early a stage can cause a host of problems later on. Consider that you can apportion only a small amount of the shares you've considered and put most of each person's equity in as either forfeitable shares or options yet to vest. In this way, each person can have precise goals that need to be met to achieve their monthly vesting. Those that contribute receive their intended shares. Those that do not, do not. Of course, you need to be fair in such a system. It requires open communications. Always warn those who are falling behind and give them a chance to recover before deciding not to invest a portion.
You can also have buyback provisions, and they do work much of the time, but I've found that these disincentivize many good contributors.
I've founded nine companies and advised and/or invested in scores more. I've seen many of those companies hastily set up and shares apportioned too early. The type of system above, where shares are possible to be forfeited from the beginning in an agreed upon and open way, has always worked for me.