3 ms·

The majority of "no single founder" advice I have heard are from investors, and that obviously includes PG as well. It is important to realize that investors ha

The majority of "no single founder" advice I have heard are from investors, and that obviously includes PG as well. It is important to realize that investors have many incentives to fund companies with more than one founder. Not all of those incentives necessarily align with the incentives of the primary founder. Being a single founder has some obvious disadvantages, but considering how many times "cofounder disputes" is cited as one of the most common reasons startups die, often by the same set of people with the above advice, I can't help but wonder if the benefit of derisking that particular concern by being a single founder is underappreciated.

mathattack 10y ago
Interesting point. Is this an issue of governance? To an investor, it's important to not have a single point of failure at the head of a company. If there are 2 founders and one loses interest or gets hit by a bus, the company survives. (Or to be more Machiavellian, if one is unreasonable, they can oust them without losing the company) If there is 1 founder, the power dynamics are different, because they have a much stronger hold on leadership and information. And more key-man risk.