3 ms·
>I think the reason Y-combinator and others like to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other. No, inv
by Jerry2 8y ago
>I think the reason Y-combinator and others like to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other.
No, investors prefer two or more founders because it dilutes the power of any individual and makes it easier for investors to play founders against each other and water down the influence of either of them. It makes investors much more influential.
- njarboe 8y agoMaybe that is the biggest reason for some/many VCs, but given how Y-combinator started, the fact it was only investing in the Angel round, and many other facts of its history, I tend to doubt it. It could be true now, but when they started and formed this idea of Y-combinator, Paul Graham, Jessica Livingston and the others were running it a startup themselves basically as an experiment on how to get more startups to exist. I think Y-Combinator even followed this pattern with Paul recruiting the others to start the company. VCs were not in the small Angel level investment scene and Y-combinator was only investing $7000? grand in the early days. Rent for 3 months basically (oh, how rents have exploded since then). As in all complex behavior, there is not "one reason" for anything and I could have better stated it as: "I think 60% of the reason Y-combinator liked to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other. Other people saw Y-Combinator's success and followed their example (including Y-Combinator)." It would be pretty cool if people started giving percentages to causal factors when discussing complex events. It would be a concise way to get a much more useful understanding of their opinions.