3 ms·

I am sure this is just one way but from all the times I remember having a great experience working with someone else, it just happened without me analyzing befo

by zaidf 20y ago

I am sure this is just one way but from all the times I remember having a great experience working with someone else, it just happened without me analyzing beforehand bullet by bullet how good the guy is. And I do have couple instances where the paper analysis of the guy was great but once we started work it wasn't so great. My experience is that if you aren't deep into a stage where you HAVE to give away a cofounder title, just start working with the guy! When we associate the cofounder title it carries the stereotypical image of a cofounder which makes us double guess if this guy is "co founder material"--but there is no such thing as "cofounder material." All you have are people passionate and skillful enough to help you start and execute your venture and people that aren't. Before thinking of someone as a "cofounder" think if he can practically help you with a skill you need that you yourself lack or aren't best at.

anon 20y ago
To answer a few questions: One of my issues with this person is that while I do like his company, and respect him in a lot of ways, we think differently about how to move things forward. I'm much more of a "below the radar, live cheap and get something working" guy, whereas he's more along the lines of "VC funding or bust", without even having much of a prototype. That just sounds bad to me. Though I recognize that funding at a later stage in the game would certainly help, I think we'll have a better bargaining position if we have something that sort of works in hand. That's another thing... I believe more in having mostly technical people. Different skill sets can certainly be a good thing (the Paypal story in Founders at Work was a good example), but it's also a good way to start thinking "hrm... I'm building the code... what is that other guy actually doing?" Juwo: I'm not planning on stealing the idea or anything like that. I have plenty of ideas of my own. The one he's hatched up is pretty good, but it's not going anywhere in terms of code or a web site or stuff like that. Just paperwork for investors...
- zaidf 20y ago
  I know several first time entrepreneurs from several years ago that "tested" waters in initial stages trying to raise VC money. And it's damn hard! So unless this guy has some inside connections and has been there, done that--I'd personally say it is not only a bad idea but potentially a huge waste of time--same thought I'm sure you must be having. If you can get going without any funding(which it appears you can) START. Yet if this guy insists on getting funding before ANYTHING else, he might just be an excuser or nonbeliever hoping the funding will validate his idea. Both bad things in a cofounder of a company that isn't even in development yet. I'll leave some room because obviously you know more than I do about this specific guy and your situation. But if I had a cofounder who INSISTED on raising VC, he would have to be DAMN GOOD seller for me to buy into it--and chances are, we would still part ways as far as working together on that specific venture.
  - vlad 20y ago
    +1 best post ever. Loaners want to be repaid with interest. They want to know how you expect to repay them. And the repayment has to come with customer money, obviously, not more loans. VC's "loan" money as well, but they want you to make them ten times as much money as they are investing; never mind a few percent interest. They also want to control your company. His idea of "if nobody is going to fund my future idea, then the world doesn't deserve it," is still actually... factual. Exactly. Don't fund that idea. DO NOT bootstrap that idea. Do not do that idea. If that idea really does require millions of dollars, do something similar and more basic to start. Don't do a half-assed job if you really calculated it would take you millions just to get launched. Remember, the world doesn't deserve it, and you can't build your idea. So build a smaller version. Simple. And you only have to get a few customers to be in the black, instead of millions. You just won't be on the news. Oh, and it gives you something to do--scaling it up and adding new features--after your initial launch. While, if you spend all these years and all this VC money before you can launch, and nobody cares about your product when it's launched, you're probably going to abandon ship. So, if you need VC money just to launch, you're nuts.
    - cwilbur 20y ago
      Well, someone needs to fund the idea. Programmers gotta eat. Is it going to be the venture capitalists, or is it going to be the users, or is it going to be the advertisers once you've attracted users to the site? If you accept the first one, it raises the bar for how much of the other two you need to acquire.
  - zeph 20y ago
    "if I had a cofounder who INSISTED on raising VC, he would have to be DAMN GOOD seller for me to buy into it" The question that has to be asked is "why does he want to raise the VC money?" Unless you need big money up front to build this thing (and you don't seem to think that's the case), I get the feeling that he desperately wants to be seen as an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs market the hell out of their product, but "Wantrepreneurs" just market the hell out of themselves. Or to put it another way, is he in love with the product, or in love with the idea that he's an entrepreneur?

by zaidf 20y ago

anon 20y ago

To answer a few questions: One of my issues with this person is that while I do like his company, and respect him in a lot of ways, we think differently about how to move things forward. I'm much more of a "below the radar, live cheap and get something working" guy, whereas he's more along the lines of "VC funding or bust", without even having much of a prototype. That just sounds bad to me. Though I recognize that funding at a later stage in the game would certainly help, I think we'll have a better bargaining position if we have something that sort of works in hand. That's another thing... I believe more in having mostly technical people. Different skill sets can certainly be a good thing (the Paypal story in Founders at Work was a good example), but it's also a good way to start thinking "hrm... I'm building the code... what is that other guy actually doing?" Juwo: I'm not planning on stealing the idea or anything like that. I have plenty of ideas of my own. The one he's hatched up is pretty good, but it's not going anywhere in terms of code or a web site or stuff like that. Just paperwork for investors...

zaidf 20y ago
I know several first time entrepreneurs from several years ago that "tested" waters in initial stages trying to raise VC money. And it's damn hard! So unless this guy has some inside connections and has been there, done that--I'd personally say it is not only a bad idea but potentially a huge waste of time--same thought I'm sure you must be having. If you can get going without any funding(which it appears you can) START. Yet if this guy insists on getting funding before ANYTHING else, he might just be an excuser or nonbeliever hoping the funding will validate his idea. Both bad things in a cofounder of a company that isn't even in development yet. I'll leave some room because obviously you know more than I do about this specific guy and your situation. But if I had a cofounder who INSISTED on raising VC, he would have to be DAMN GOOD seller for me to buy into it--and chances are, we would still part ways as far as working together on that specific venture.
- vlad 20y ago
  +1 best post ever. Loaners want to be repaid with interest. They want to know how you expect to repay them. And the repayment has to come with customer money, obviously, not more loans. VC's "loan" money as well, but they want you to make them ten times as much money as they are investing; never mind a few percent interest. They also want to control your company. His idea of "if nobody is going to fund my future idea, then the world doesn't deserve it," is still actually... factual. Exactly. Don't fund that idea. DO NOT bootstrap that idea. Do not do that idea. If that idea really does require millions of dollars, do something similar and more basic to start. Don't do a half-assed job if you really calculated it would take you millions just to get launched. Remember, the world doesn't deserve it, and you can't build your idea. So build a smaller version. Simple. And you only have to get a few customers to be in the black, instead of millions. You just won't be on the news. Oh, and it gives you something to do--scaling it up and adding new features--after your initial launch. While, if you spend all these years and all this VC money before you can launch, and nobody cares about your product when it's launched, you're probably going to abandon ship. So, if you need VC money just to launch, you're nuts.
  - cwilbur 20y ago
    Well, someone needs to fund the idea. Programmers gotta eat. Is it going to be the venture capitalists, or is it going to be the users, or is it going to be the advertisers once you've attracted users to the site? If you accept the first one, it raises the bar for how much of the other two you need to acquire.
- zeph 20y ago
  "if I had a cofounder who INSISTED on raising VC, he would have to be DAMN GOOD seller for me to buy into it" The question that has to be asked is "why does he want to raise the VC money?" Unless you need big money up front to build this thing (and you don't seem to think that's the case), I get the feeling that he desperately wants to be seen as an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs market the hell out of their product, but "Wantrepreneurs" just market the hell out of themselves. Or to put it another way, is he in love with the product, or in love with the idea that he's an entrepreneur?