4 ms·
Just a variation on the "single founders don't work" argument. Sure, it doesn't usually work, but it does with the right single founder, even if it's not that o
by rewind 16y ago
Just a variation on the "single founders don't work" argument. Sure, it doesn't usually work, but it does with the right single founder, even if it's not that often. I don't see any new arguments here.
I've been a single founder twice and done just fine (by my standards), but investing in startups with two+ founders is definitely safer if you're the person putting the money on the table. If I had money, I would certainly be reluctant to invest in a single-founder startup, regardless of my own personal experience.
I don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another. It's all shades of grey, just like almost everything. No need to make it black or white.
- nudge 16y agoThis is a great point. Often people conflate the (probably) sensible VC preference for a two-person startup with the idea that two people are necessary for a successful startup. These are two totally different ideas, and only the former is really defensible (the latter having many counterexamples).
- patio11 16y agoI don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another. Well, if you're a single founder who wants to take funding at some point, you have a fairly direct incentive to prevent "single founder = failure" from becoming the received wisdom.