4 ms·
The cofounder myth is a correlation vs. causation trap. The reason so many successful companies have multiple founders is that in the early days, when it was j
by qq66 16y ago
The cofounder myth is a correlation vs. causation trap.
The reason so many successful companies have multiple founders is that in the early days, when it was just ideas bouncing around, the cofounder dynamic made two people sit down together, feed off each other's energy, refine each other's ideas, and get the company going in the earliest stages.
If you've already gotten that far as a single founder, you don't need to find a cofounder. If you haven't gotten that far as a single founder, maybe a partner will help you get that far.
- swampthing 16y agoNot entirely sure if this was what you were getting at, but I've always found advice against 50/50 equity to likely be the product of a cognitive error. People see companies with 50/50 equity splits failing due to founder disputes and extrapolate that to mean that 50/50 equity split is sub-optimal. This does not necessarily follow - it could very well be the case that it is the cause of disputes but that it is still often the best option. Sort of like how there's a lot of problems with democracy but the prevailing wisdom is that it's still the best form of government out there (same with capitalism). Not saying that it necessarily is the best way to do things (though I'm partial to it), just that I have not seen convincing arguments against it - that it doesn't work sometimes does not cut it, it has to work less well than an alternative.