4 ms·

> $130k to pay a single employee for one year. I don't know about you, but it's extremely difficult for most people to save up that kind of runway. I think the

by ardy42 6y ago

> $130k to pay a single employee for one year. I don't know about you, but it's extremely difficult for most people to save up that kind of runway. I think the idea is that step one isn't hiring a subordinate employee; it's having secure enough finances that you (or you and your co-founders) can work for yourself for a time. Step two is actually working on the business, and step three is growing is revenues to the point where it can sustain you, four is growing them further to the point where they can support an employee, and five is actually hiring that employee and paying them $130k a year.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Co-founders? Why are they co-founding? Profit sharing? That's an excellent way to devolve into squabbling about who gets what. VC also protects against that: the money is for the company, and it's illegal to siphon it out of the company. Unfortunately in practice your suggestion tends to become "You're working for yourself, alone." And sure, I love the idea of a one-person company. Lots of talented devs can sell, if they try. But lots of talented devs are also trying to get rich on the iOS app store; few do.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Co-founders? Why are they co-founding? Profit sharing? Because they had an idea with you and want to work together to make it happen? Or all kinds of other things like that? And yeah, if you're going to do that, you're going to have to be careful make sure you're not the kind of people who will need adult supervision to avoid squabbling. VC might have its uses, or provide some service, but that shouldn't be misunderstood to mean that it's essential or alternatives aren't worth considering. The other thing to note is that one of the things VCs do is sell the VC paradigm, so they're going to try their hardest to make it seem like it's essential or at least the best product out there.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Hmm. You're dodging the question: Why would a cofounder want to start a company with you? No handwaving. People cofound to get rich. Can your company offer that to your cofounder? If you focus on that question, the rest falls into place. Unfortunately a lot of people don't want to focus on that question, because it's at the heart of why bootstrapping rarely works. "Not needing adult supervision" indicates that you probably haven't done what you're saying. It's not a matter of supervision. It's managing expectations. You are legally required to lay out what you offer, in clear terms, and what you expect in return. That's the basis of a business arrangement. So, we're going into business together. How will your company make me rich? Why should I work as hard as I possibly can to make the company succeed?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Hmm. You're dodging the question: Why would a cofounder want to start a company with you? No handwaving. > People cofound to get rich. Can your company offer that to your cofounder? I don't know. Why did Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak start Apple together? I feel like you're laboring under a very limited model of how and why companies are founded and how people behave.
      - sillysaurusx 6y ago
        The model happens to be aligned with how and why people actually start companies. It's not my model. You have to come up with a persuasive answer to "Why should I work as hard as I can on this company, rather than go work for Google?" That question is in fact so hard that it (possibly) almost killed YC in the crib, back in '08. No one wants to work for a startup when they can get paid far more and live an easier life. What you're proposing, if I understand you correctly, is that someone works extremely hard, for no concrete gain other than perhaps intellectual curiosity. Sure, you can argue that the usual benefits apply: you're free to do as you please, and to self-manage. But that's not a very convincing argument in the face of $RIDICULOUS_SALARY at a bigco. It's cliche to say "Don't hate the player, hate the game," but I believe it applies here. Neither of us chose to live in a capitalistic society. We were born into one. Why not make the optimal decisions, all else being equal?
- threedots 6y ago
  I am a cofounder of a non-VC backed startup. We work together because (1) we're friends (2) like working together (3) have complimentary skillsets. We split the equity 50/50 and receive the same salary. We've been doing it several years and we've never had even a single conversation on the topic, we just assumed from the beginning it was an even split and that's how we went about it.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  They co-found to make money. It's just not as fast paced as the VC option but it's the same thing as any business. The founder thinks that with more than 1 person, each person would make more money than if only the founder worked.

by ardy42 6y ago

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Co-founders? Why are they co-founding? Profit sharing? That's an excellent way to devolve into squabbling about who gets what. VC also protects against that: the money is for the company, and it's illegal to siphon it out of the company. Unfortunately in practice your suggestion tends to become "You're working for yourself, alone." And sure, I love the idea of a one-person company. Lots of talented devs can sell, if they try. But lots of talented devs are also trying to get rich on the iOS app store; few do.

ardy42 6y ago
> Co-founders? Why are they co-founding? Profit sharing? Because they had an idea with you and want to work together to make it happen? Or all kinds of other things like that? And yeah, if you're going to do that, you're going to have to be careful make sure you're not the kind of people who will need adult supervision to avoid squabbling. VC might have its uses, or provide some service, but that shouldn't be misunderstood to mean that it's essential or alternatives aren't worth considering. The other thing to note is that one of the things VCs do is sell the VC paradigm, so they're going to try their hardest to make it seem like it's essential or at least the best product out there.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Hmm. You're dodging the question: Why would a cofounder want to start a company with you? No handwaving. People cofound to get rich. Can your company offer that to your cofounder? If you focus on that question, the rest falls into place. Unfortunately a lot of people don't want to focus on that question, because it's at the heart of why bootstrapping rarely works. "Not needing adult supervision" indicates that you probably haven't done what you're saying. It's not a matter of supervision. It's managing expectations. You are legally required to lay out what you offer, in clear terms, and what you expect in return. That's the basis of a business arrangement. So, we're going into business together. How will your company make me rich? Why should I work as hard as I possibly can to make the company succeed?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Hmm. You're dodging the question: Why would a cofounder want to start a company with you? No handwaving. > People cofound to get rich. Can your company offer that to your cofounder? I don't know. Why did Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak start Apple together? I feel like you're laboring under a very limited model of how and why companies are founded and how people behave.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      The model happens to be aligned with how and why people actually start companies. It's not my model. You have to come up with a persuasive answer to "Why should I work as hard as I can on this company, rather than go work for Google?" That question is in fact so hard that it (possibly) almost killed YC in the crib, back in '08. No one wants to work for a startup when they can get paid far more and live an easier life. What you're proposing, if I understand you correctly, is that someone works extremely hard, for no concrete gain other than perhaps intellectual curiosity. Sure, you can argue that the usual benefits apply: you're free to do as you please, and to self-manage. But that's not a very convincing argument in the face of $RIDICULOUS_SALARY at a bigco. It's cliche to say "Don't hate the player, hate the game," but I believe it applies here. Neither of us chose to live in a capitalistic society. We were born into one. Why not make the optimal decisions, all else being equal?
threedots 6y ago
I am a cofounder of a non-VC backed startup. We work together because (1) we're friends (2) like working together (3) have complimentary skillsets. We split the equity 50/50 and receive the same salary. We've been doing it several years and we've never had even a single conversation on the topic, we just assumed from the beginning it was an even split and that's how we went about it.
cercatrova 6y ago
They co-found to make money. It's just not as fast paced as the VC option but it's the same thing as any business. The founder thinks that with more than 1 person, each person would make more money than if only the founder worked.