That's because the entire idea of a co-founder is bunk. It has been proven time and time again but for some very strange reason start-ups keep pretending that t

That's because the entire idea of a co-founder is bunk. It has been proven time and time again but for some very strange reason start-ups keep pretending that the regular rules do not apply to them. A startup "co-founder" relationship is a partnership. Go and ask any business advisor if starting a new business as partnership is a good idea. If he or she is in a business of selling anything other than an hourly fee, you would get plenty of explanations why partnership is a terrible idea and why business should structured in a way to prevent those operating it of thinking of themselves as "partners". You can think of partnership as marriage and your business as a kid. If the two "parents" aren't on the exactly same page how to handle the kid for the entirety of kids life until the age of the majority, raise the kid, deal with kids friends both the marriage will break and the kid will get to have a shitty life. One person starts a business. That person brings on board employee number #1 and employee number #2 and employee number #3 etc delegating them certain functions but there's no disagreement of who is the boss. This might be an odd idea in the startup land as it seems in most of cases that I have either been closely involved in or observed there's usually no single founder that is capable of starting a business on micro scale who would need help to scale business up. Rather a combination of the founders creates a virtual businessman/businesswoman that is capable of starting a business. VCs, obviously, love this as it allows them to play founders against each other to reach VCs goals and vision whatever those goals and that vision may be.