3 ms·

I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnece

by craze3 15y ago

I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.

Retric 15y ago
Secondary founders work for less pay than anyone else in exchange for large chunks of equity which can be a huge asset for a tiny company. Add in the validation of being able to convince someone else that you have a good enough idea to take such helps convince VC's that the idea has merit. Having someone else committed also means you have someone to bounce ideas off of at 7:30pm that knows the issues and can give new incite is huge. Finally, it reduces your buss factor where is someone get's sick the company can still operate.
ghshephard 15y ago
" I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. " Simply knowing that it increases the chances that the startup will succeed should be sufficient to understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. True, it's not required 100% of the time, but, a-priori, how can anyone know whether this is one of those times. There are a hundred well defined things that can contribute to the failure of a startup (in addition to the thousand less well defined things) - one thing that YC brings to the table is identifying that list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided. Coming in with at least one cofounder brings the list to 99. Incorporating in Delaware to 98. Having someone who can code 97. etc, etc, etc...
- sandee 15y ago
  Is there really a YC list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided ? Very interested to know
  - pg 15y ago
    There's one of 18: http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
    - abbasmehdi 15y ago
      Any updates to this list since Oct '06?
      - Hitchhiker 15y ago
        PG's list is just the tip. Of one of many icebergs a startup will hit. Serious. Head to http://pmarchive.com http://pmarchive.com
geoffschmidt 15y ago
Startups are just so much work. You need some help. For example, if you have two founders, then one can go out and do fundraising for a month while the other keeps the company running. If you had only one founder, you'd be dead in the water for that month. (Even if you have employees -- things are going to decay if all of the founders are distracted.) Also, I've never known YC to play founders against each other.
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  Great point, I'd also add emotional support in the darkest hours.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
    Naw! A good hacker has some BIG advantages! First, he KNOWS that his code works! This is a BIGGIE because there isn't a critic in the world who can write rhetoric that will stop or even slow the code from working! No matter how many nasty words might be said, the code will still WORK! That's a BIGGIE. Can sleep well on it and maybe soon take it to the bank. Second, the hacker has in his good code a great example of how to solve problems, an example that applies not universally but, still, significantly more generally. So, one of the first ways the hacker knew his code was good was when he gave it a severe desk check. There he went through the code as a 'logical path' that connected end to end. Well, that's a GREAT 'problem solving paradigm', one of the very best of all! So, apply that paradigm where can to some of the other issues in the startup. E.g., a biggie is, will users and/or customers like it? Well, if have a good solution for a big ass, hairy, stinking problem people are screaming to have solved and for which there is no good solution, then, sure, just found your 'end to end logical connection'. The run out of cash worry? Do the checkbook arithmetic; then do good planning; then execute the plan well; then no worries, mate. Net, rationalize, don't emotionalize.
seven_stones 15y ago
> I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from Basically the YC model stems from PG recreating his experience with ViaWeb. He started a company with his best friend and another expert programmer, so that's the model that seems like the "right" model to them. Others have very different experiences working with other people (e.g. the much-maligned group projects in college) so they have a different mental model of what works and what doesn't, at least for themselves. There are extremely valid arguments both ways which largely boil down to individual variation, but here's a key point that gets overlooked: Perhaps if you haven't done it as a single founder, you don't know what it takes, and so you don't know what to look for. He has done it in a group. So if you're good at picking twos and threes, or feel you are, you can fill up your whole complement with those. And then it becomes self-reinforcing. You get more and more confident with the one than the other which is avoided. Some pitchers rely on their fastball and don't develop their slider. So eventually you're looking at, let's say for sake of illustration, 90% confidence in picking groups, but hardly any confidence still in picking solo founders. So when you're looking at the last slot, do you want to add another group you are 90% sure of, or say no to someone you are excited about and go with some solo founder you are dubious about? And what about the second-to-last slot? And all the way back... Surely your FIRST choice isn't going to be a solo founder! Even though YC claims not to have a fixed limit, obviously there is a practical limit. And when they say they fund everyone they find promising, you have to take it with a grain of salt, because in their model, being a single founder already isn't promising.
Joakal 15y ago
Probably YC's way of saying, target this niche of single-founders because they are too mainstream. If you can handle investing in single-founders, you can rival YC I suppose.

by craze3 15y ago

Retric 15y ago

Secondary founders work for less pay than anyone else in exchange for large chunks of equity which can be a huge asset for a tiny company. Add in the validation of being able to convince someone else that you have a good enough idea to take such helps convince VC's that the idea has merit. Having someone else committed also means you have someone to bounce ideas off of at 7:30pm that knows the issues and can give new incite is huge. Finally, it reduces your buss factor where is someone get's sick the company can still operate.

ghshephard 15y ago

" I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. " Simply knowing that it increases the chances that the startup will succeed should be sufficient to understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. True, it's not required 100% of the time, but, a-priori, how can anyone know whether this is one of those times. There are a hundred well defined things that can contribute to the failure of a startup (in addition to the thousand less well defined things) - one thing that YC brings to the table is identifying that list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided. Coming in with at least one cofounder brings the list to 99. Incorporating in Delaware to 98. Having someone who can code 97. etc, etc, etc...

sandee 15y ago
Is there really a YC list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided ? Very interested to know
- pg 15y ago
  There's one of 18: http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
  - abbasmehdi 15y ago
    Any updates to this list since Oct '06?
    - Hitchhiker 15y ago
      PG's list is just the tip. Of one of many icebergs a startup will hit. Serious. Head to http://pmarchive.com http://pmarchive.com

geoffschmidt 15y ago

Startups are just so much work. You need some help. For example, if you have two founders, then one can go out and do fundraising for a month while the other keeps the company running. If you had only one founder, you'd be dead in the water for that month. (Even if you have employees -- things are going to decay if all of the founders are distracted.) Also, I've never known YC to play founders against each other.

abbasmehdi 15y ago
Great point, I'd also add emotional support in the darkest hours.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
  Naw! A good hacker has some BIG advantages! First, he KNOWS that his code works! This is a BIGGIE because there isn't a critic in the world who can write rhetoric that will stop or even slow the code from working! No matter how many nasty words might be said, the code will still WORK! That's a BIGGIE. Can sleep well on it and maybe soon take it to the bank. Second, the hacker has in his good code a great example of how to solve problems, an example that applies not universally but, still, significantly more generally. So, one of the first ways the hacker knew his code was good was when he gave it a severe desk check. There he went through the code as a 'logical path' that connected end to end. Well, that's a GREAT 'problem solving paradigm', one of the very best of all! So, apply that paradigm where can to some of the other issues in the startup. E.g., a biggie is, will users and/or customers like it? Well, if have a good solution for a big ass, hairy, stinking problem people are screaming to have solved and for which there is no good solution, then, sure, just found your 'end to end logical connection'. The run out of cash worry? Do the checkbook arithmetic; then do good planning; then execute the plan well; then no worries, mate. Net, rationalize, don't emotionalize.

seven_stones 15y ago

> I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from Basically the YC model stems from PG recreating his experience with ViaWeb. He started a company with his best friend and another expert programmer, so that's the model that seems like the "right" model to them. Others have very different experiences working with other people (e.g. the much-maligned group projects in college) so they have a different mental model of what works and what doesn't, at least for themselves. There are extremely valid arguments both ways which largely boil down to individual variation, but here's a key point that gets overlooked: Perhaps if you haven't done it as a single founder, you don't know what it takes, and so you don't know what to look for. He has done it in a group. So if you're good at picking twos and threes, or feel you are, you can fill up your whole complement with those. And then it becomes self-reinforcing. You get more and more confident with the one than the other which is avoided. Some pitchers rely on their fastball and don't develop their slider. So eventually you're looking at, let's say for sake of illustration, 90% confidence in picking groups, but hardly any confidence still in picking solo founders. So when you're looking at the last slot, do you want to add another group you are 90% sure of, or say no to someone you are excited about and go with some solo founder you are dubious about? And what about the second-to-last slot? And all the way back... Surely your FIRST choice isn't going to be a solo founder! Even though YC claims not to have a fixed limit, obviously there is a practical limit. And when they say they fund everyone they find promising, you have to take it with a grain of salt, because in their model, being a single founder already isn't promising.

Joakal 15y ago

Probably YC's way of saying, target this niche of single-founders because they are too mainstream. If you can handle investing in single-founders, you can rival YC I suppose.