11 ms·

Co-Founding Considered Harmful

249 points by sylvainkalache 4y ago

metacritic12 4y ago
A very well written article. The title is a bit clickbaity especially since the article doesn't drive hard towards that conclusion, but all the better for the article. As a serial entrepreneur I can say his tactical advice is rooted in experience.
rogerkirkness 4y ago
This didn't mention the expected value of the outcome by co-founder status, which to me would be the most important consideration and likely supports having one.
- bckr 4y ago
  They did mention that the valuation would be lower as a solo, and offered the mitigation strategy of lining up potential first hires as a way to raise more.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
"X considered harmful" considered very overused.
- saghm 4y ago
  Or put another way, "Considered harmful" is considered harmful: https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cercatrova 4y ago
Based on my prior experiences, I am thoroughly convinced of wanting to be a solo founder going forward. I know the statistics of VCs and whatnot are conducive to co-founder startups but I just don't care. It's liberating to work by oneself.
- uup 4y ago
  It’s liberating but also tiring. Sometimes it’s nice to have someone to lean on. To commiserate with. To share success with. And no one is perfect. It’s nice to have someone fill in your weaknesses. I solo founded once. I won’t do it again. It’s too lonely. And I’m not even a social person.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Your argument is covered in the article just FYI in case you haven't read it yet.
    - uup 4y ago
      The argument isn’t a that convincing. Basically, instead of having a good co-founder you could have a bad one. I don’t know enough about the data used to comment on that aspect. Perhaps, statistically, it really is better to found solo. I’m just sharing my personal experience. Having founded solo once, I won’t do it again.
      - eins1234 4y ago
        I think the counter argument in the article that was more relevant was the grass is always greener on the other side part. It's hard to form an informed opinion until we've been on both sides. Though I think it's totally valid to want to try the cofounder approach if you've tried the solo approach and just totally hated it and never want to do it again. I think there are probably also plenty of founders out there who have had a bad cofounder experience and would only consider solo-founding for their next venture.
        uup 4y ago
        I guess I should have clarified that I've done both. For me, personally, having co-founders was more fun and more successful. YMMV of course :)
        4y ago
indus 4y ago
Doesn’t YC recommend a non-solo team. Solo founder startups are most likely to get rejected?
- julianeon 4y ago
  I think the difference is VC-backed startups need to achieve a larger scale, for which more than one person is needed.
  - indus 4y ago
    But that team could be non founders..early engineers, hired guns, mercenaries,…
    - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
      You don't want mercenaries running your company.
      - indus 4y ago
        I was making a point around building a team…
- RayVR 4y ago
  I don’t think you are “most likely to get rejected” IIRC, they have a preference for founders > 1 but it is not a strict rule. From an investment perspective this makes sense for a number of reasons. Diversification at the top decision maker level may be seen as beneficial. Bus factor is greater than or equal to 1. (vs exactly 1 for a solid founder) if a solo founder decides to pack it in or is the victim of a bus accident, the probability the startup will survive, in the early stages and maybe much longer, is approximately zero. Separation of concerns may be possible. Sales/marketing/anything non-technical + technical is a powerful combination if both are scrappy. Getting a solo founder that’s good at both is exceedingly rare. I am certain the list goes on and I may not have even touched on the most important points that YC values. My own experience, however, is that if you are not selecting cofounders from a pool that meets or exceeds your own level of ambition/dedication and skill, you are almost certainly going to fail. I would argue, if you don’t have access to the right people in your network when you form your initial business, the odds are much better if you wait and take on a cofounder at a later time, even if it feels like they weren’t there for the beginning. If your startup is remotely successful the future will be much longer than the short history of your company and the benefits of having a good cofounder will outweigh whatever equity you give up.
evrydayhustling 4y ago
The study this relies on has big limitations that should be noted. - It is based on Kickstarter data only, which tend to be specific business models. - The metric of success is a self-reported "still alive" status, not valuation or other size criteria. Results can be equally explained as "solo founders are less likely to officially close failed businesses than teams".
evrydayhustling 4y ago
The study this relies on has big limitations that should be noted. - It is based on Kickstarter data only, which tend to be specific business models. - The metric of success is a self-reported "still alive" status, not valuation or other size criteria. Results can be equally explained as "solo founders are less likely to officially close failed businesses than teams".
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  Seems like a business is likely to fall apart if just one of the founders leaves. One founder gives you a success probability of P. Two is P*P. P*P is less than P unless success was 100%.
  - beambot 4y ago
    At the time that one founder leaves... The company with a solo founder fails 100% of the time, whereas the company with 2+ founders frequently survives to keep trying.
ccvannorman 4y ago
Startup Compass did longiutdinal data (NOT Kickstarter biased data) and showed that 2 is the optimal number for a cofounding team to succeed, followed by 3, 1, and 4.
- Lienetic 4y ago
  Do you by chance have a link to that study? I did some Googling but I'm not sure whether I found what you are referring to. Is it the one that says that the optimal number of cofounders is 2.09?
neilv 4y ago
> This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea. Would that make it too easy to force out a co-founder, with nothing? Just make it so unpleasant, in a game of chicken, that they leave? Or to abandon a co-founder at the initial company, while taking know-how, customer/partner relationships, etc., and starting a new company doing the same thing that the initial company would do, but with a clean slate on sharing equity (co-founders and past investors)? I'd guess an evil investor might like this agreement, so long as they'll be benefiting from the evil (e.g., cutting out a co-founder's share of equity). But what about investors who don't want the risk of losing to evil (e.g., know-how and relationships built with their money, leaving to found competitor in which they have no equity)?
preommr 4y ago
I've been a solo developer for many years now. It's definitely a skill that takes time to develop. Almost as much as trying to work with others. The main difference is that other people are much more of an unknown variable. That first additional worker is a major first hurdle. Putting it off until later can make it even more daunting. Solo-dev means that certain verticals become very easy, e.g. the technicals. But a successful business has 2-3 really important parts that are more "horizontal" like good communication or business skills. Having multiple people really increases the easy of filling in that gap. In fact, I am really curious how other solo-devs solve these problems. From what I've seen, they basically don't and get by because the competition is sparse or they get lucky and they get help from not another founder, but someone that is heavily invested and acts as a strong advisor. There's also the option of just doing everything yourself by learning to be good at multiple things and taking much longer. Which is pretty high risk in that it's very sink or swim since those additional skills are unlikely to ever be useful outside of the startup the founder is working on. It's what I opted for, and we'll so how that works out.
- DenisM 4y ago
  >There's also the option of just doing everything yourself by learning to be good at multiple things and taking much longer. It will likely take a lot longer than you expect, sucking your whole life into it. Set a hard stop for yourself ahead of time, so that you know when to quit and try something else in life.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  What I did is the latter, learning everything. It's really not as hard as it sounds, due to the Pareto principle. I taught myself most of what I needed regarding sales, marketing, and design, enough to sell my products. Not sure why you say the skills aren't useful outside of the startup, sales for example is extremely good at teaching interpersonal communication.
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    The main problem with doing it all yourself is the time sink/cost eventually becomes an issue, especially since in my experience communications/marketing/sales and programming/technical work tend to involve exactly opposite working styles and requirements: Programming and other technical work really benefits from long periods of uninterrupted work, whereas sales/customer service/marketing is very 'you work when the work needs done'. (I'm a programmer who worked in communications a bit.) Learning all aspects of running a business is definitely plausible, but actually doing all the work becomes a logistical nightmare of opportunity costs very quickly.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
Anyone have experience with cofounder agreements which pre-negotiate a buyout price (via some kind of algorithm) such that either cofounder can buy the other out without question later on? To avoid drawn out and painful separation negotiations later on for even simple cases such as one side losing interest.
dasil003 4y ago
A lot of talk here about the flaws in the study. I gotta say, founding a startup is not a numbers game, if you see it that way you've already lost. It's about the founder(s): their vision, their judgement, their force-of-will, and most of all, what they do every day. The pros and cons of solo vs group founding are well analyzed, but for your startup, the one trying to build something from nothing, the data tells you nothing, it's just the noise of averages which is utterly irrelevant to your specific situation as a founder. The only thing that matter is what you are doing each day in your vertical. Are you making progress? Do you have traction? Is it working? I'm not saying solo vs group isn't significant. It is. But you have to make a call and run with it. Reading more articles about it won't help. Everyone's situation is different. Successful entrepreneurs are above all resourceful. Don't get caught playing house.
- antupis 4y ago
  I would say if you know that you can sell and code then go solo otherwise find partner.
  - doctor_eval 4y ago
    Be honest with yourself about your weaknesses, and try to hire people who can fill in for them. But don't ever give them control over your vision.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      this sounds like it doesn't come from a place of enlightenment. It sounds like it stems from insecurity. People on shrooms have visions too. Putin doesn't let anyone control his vision. Both would be better off listening
      - doctor_eval 4y ago
        We’re talking about starting a business here. If you don’t have a vision for it, why the hell would you go to the trouble? I’m writing from experience.
braingenious 4y ago
I always like to poke fun at the “How to deal with being the smartest person in the room/industry/world”-style blog posts that make for common front-page schlock here, but this is a fascinating and relatively rare sub-species of “You ARE the smartest person in the room/industry/world. Anyone that suggests otherwise is ‘considered harmful’” I love that the extension of this is “making friends considered harmful”, “trusting others considered harmful”, “forming professional relationships considered harmful (unless they’re subservient to your supreme vision, intellect and command)” This reads like a very angry breakup letter.
- _xnmw 4y ago
  False dichotomy. Going out on your own doesn't mean you think you are the smartest person in the room. It's often about freedom. If I decide I want to go biking alone, doesn't mean I think I am the best biker. I decided to keep going the solo-founder route precisely so that my social circle could be enlarged and enriched. Now I don't have to spend most of my time around tech bros and cofounders whose main interest in business. Instead, I cultivate my social relationships in completely unrelated domains: the arts, community outreach, my physical neighbourhood, religion/philosophy and other hobbies. That gives me both the motivation and the space to think and keep going at the business, because my work fuels something other than itself.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    I’m glad that worked out for you professionally and socially, but what exactly are you saying here? If you had a co-founder you wouldn’t have time for friends that are into art, philosophy, religion, neighborhoods, hobbies? edit: To clarify, if I had a business partner that cost me that much, I would definitely sever from that relationship. I would consider that a failure of a single relationship rather than waxing poetic about how everybody would cost that much. To do so would be for me to put myself above theoretical individuals because of a single event. That probably wouldn’t be the sort of error that I would see as reasonable when thinking about anybody I’d maybe do business with…
  - kossTKR 4y ago
eins1234 4y ago
At the end of the day, I don't think there's a right choice here. Either way we choose to go, with or without a cofounder, starting a startup is just damn hard, and either path has a ton of potential pitfalls, so the best we can do is just pick the path that better suits our life situation/preferences. FWIW, the actual recommendations in the article are a lot more nuanced than the rather inflammatory title. I for one appreciated it, if nothing more than as something to counter the prevailing propaganda in the valley around how having a cofounder always increases your chances to succeed, even though cofounder conflict consistently ranks as one of the top startup killers. I especially concur with the conjecture that "cofounder dating" (and services that facilitate and encourage it) likely leads overwhelmingly to bad outcomes for the vast majority of cases, and people might have better chances to succeed as a solo founder than to resort to founding with someone they've been on just a handful of "dates" with.
andrewmcwatters 4y ago
This is a not often talked about topic that I'd like more data on, or simply more case studies. IIRC, Y Combinator takes the stance that they'd highly prefer two founders over a solo founder. Maybe this is exclusively a networking or proximity problem but considering the tech circles I run in internationally, there just isn't an abundant amount of people I want to do business with as partners. And frankly, yes, it is because most people are woefully underqualified. There are undoubtedly people on HN that you and I run into on a regular reading basis who have more knowledge in a random technical space than most people on the planet. There just aren't a ton of us the further you go in. Let's not get carried away here, one person working in ANY space in the world for a short amount of time making the right decisions can very quickly become a top 1% knowledge carrier in a field with low intellectual barriers to entry. When you hear people you think are bragging about being a top person in their field, the reality is more like there are only 10,000 participants in 7 billion people on the planet, and 20% of those 10,000 are actively working on their problem. I've considered cofounders twice, maybe three times, in my life. As far as my experience takes me, they're not frequent occurrences. You will have an expiration on how many life experiences will allow you the affordances to meet these types of people organically. Otherwise, you need to find a cofounder through a Y Combinator-like space. And frankly, I don't see the value in that other than the immediate logarithmic fall-off of early labor split between two members with skin in the game. So the probability space is already working against you. I'm certain there is an obvious flaw with my thinking like, having to cofounders with specialties across two spaces is undervalued, but even then you just are not going to run into enough people in your life who you're going to say, yes I want to do business with this person for 10-20+ years. Warren Buffetts and Charlie Mungers or otherwise good friends, true partners in business, are not popping up left and right. You can't pick one up at your corner store Circle K. Edit: There are other cofounders besides technical ones, but the same truths hold across disciplines as well.
- onion2k 4y ago
  Maybe this is exclusively a networking or proximity problem but considering the tech circles I run in internationally, there just isn't an abundant amount of people I want to do business with as partners. And frankly, yes, it is because most people are woefully underqualified. I think this is the attitude tech accelerators are actively trying to avoid when they look for startups with more than one founder. The most important thing by far in a startup is the ability of the founders to work with other people - to be successful in an accelwrator you'll need to work with the accelerator team, other founders, investors, people you hire, and your customers. Having a co-founder or two is a strong signal that you can do that. You will have no control whatsoever over who most of those people are, or how "qualified" they might be. You have to have the ability to get on well with them and work with them no matter what. That doesn't mean you can't be a solo founder and succeed. People do that. It just means you're much less likely to succeed in an accelerator if you can't demonstrate the ability to work well with others.
Existenceblinks 4y ago
Co-founders bring psychological interrupt operated randomly regardless of activities. Having people to point fingers to around in stressful environment and condition, that's the best place to raising evils.
skrebbel 4y ago
Fwiw I don’t think my company would still be around today if I had started it alone instead of with my co-founder. You gotta be lucky to get along, and we get along disgustingly well. We hardly knew each other when we started and now it feels like we’ve been besties since primary school or something. That’s pure luck, like so many things. But the way we’ve carried each other through hard times is, to me, irreplaceable.
bdominy 4y ago
Having a co-founder is a simple way to show you have an idea other people may actually buy into. Credibility is crucial and people like quick assurances. It's like having a degree from an Ivy League school.
- dfee 4y ago
  Then it’s the first vanity metric.
mirzap 4y ago
Success is all about network(ing). No matter how good your product is if you don't have network of people to approach and sell, you won't succeed. More people join together - bigger the network, more potential customers. It's harder due internal structure and struggles, sure. It's ok to be solo founder, it has it's perks. If that is what makes you happy, go for it. But to consider co-founding harmful is simply wrong, it's not what we see in practice for the last couple of decades.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pkrumins 4y ago
  Success is all about SEO rankings. If you rank well, they will come and you will sell.
  - mirzap 4y ago
    Funny you mention SEO. SEO is good example how network impacts your reach. SEO ranking is all about the network. You can't have good SEO ranking without network (other people and websites referencing to you). So network wins, again. More people you know and share your product in early phase, the better. They will mention it in social, on their blogs etc. If you knew few people, fewer people will knew for you too.
    - pkrumins 4y ago
      gg
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
malikNF 4y ago
At the end of the day, there are people who succeeded solo and then there are those who succeeded with a cofounder(s). Guess theres no one “only” way to do it. Suppose you gotta do what feels right for you, experiment, iterate and find something that makes you happy to do what you do. If I am not happy doing something solo whats the use going solo and If I am not happy co-founding whats the use of doing it with a team?
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
Ideas are a dime a dozen, but workmanship costs real time and money. No sane investor will touch a company that lacks the resources to complete their project. The number one warning sign a company is doomed, is when the senior technical staff jump ship. Also, many successful co-founders end up hating each other by the end of a project, and often end up in epic legal battles. Getting your contracts clearly settled early does help prevent tax shenanigans that can hit a small firm hard. Example: if an ex-employee claims dependent contractor status on a return, than a business could be on the hook for a $70k government tax/pension bill. Founders syndrome is an ugly disease, that quickly rots a firm back into a $90k glass-ceiling business. ;)
rixrax 4y ago
Being co-founders is 'just' like marriage. Some marriages work, others don't. But when it works, it is really great. And just like in marriages, the ones that actually work, are statistically speaking a rare thing. And when they don't work, they can get ugly in variety of ways. Whether it's a marriage, or being a co-founder, understanding that you're in it for a long term, keeping a cool head, managing expectations, talking, apologising, and never humiliating the other goes a long way.
pazimzadeh 4y ago
This post does not expose the fact that all of the companies analyzed in this study were crowdfunded. It seems like they didn't look at the current most successful companies founding history. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898
quickthrower2 4y ago
I wonder if it should be "advice" considered harmful in general. There is SOOOOOO much business advice, and taking it all seriously can paint you in to a corner of paralysis.
- Silverback_VII 4y ago
  The problem is that the economy is not a very valid environment in which get useful & timely feedback. It's therefore almost impossible to become an expert. Moreover I think a large part of sucess is people skills. But there are certainly some key aspects which do help a lot: - Start with why(Simon Sinek) - Move (preferably were there is higher return - similar to hill climbing algorithms) - Discipline, Focus & Persistence - Improve your social intelligence - Learn about power dynamics (Power from Jeffrey Pfeffer)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
c7b 4y ago
spullara 4y ago
Please ignore this unless they are a billionaire already after being a legit solo founder.
mgaunard 4y ago
This is silly. Delivering quality requires focus. Focus requires departmentalization. There is no value in the CEO spending time on finance, accounting or legal.
yc-kraln 4y ago
The first and most difficult person to convince that your crazy idea/company is going to be worth a billion is your first cofounder. "The research is based on a survey of creators for thousands of Kickstarter projects between 2009 and May 2015." Article is using kickstarter data, which was questionable in the beginning but now as kickstarter has greyed out would be even more questionable. What about using actual VC-backed company data? If you look there, solo founders are not only the (extremely large) exception, but they also have lower valuations and success rates. Founding a company is extremely difficult and there is a huge amount of stuff to take care of. If you cannot find someone(s) you can delegate a portion of that work to, you will suffer. It's a signal for investors because it's a huge buy-in to become a co-founder, and solo founders burn out all the time. Using kickstarter to share advice on VC isn't just misleading, it's downright harmful.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  I think there is a lot of research to qualify your opinion. A VC backed startup is a very different beast than a bootstrapped startup with a wildly different goal and trajectory. VC-backed startups must focus on market growth in order to make that next round of funding. Bootstrapped startups must focus on product and building strong personal relationships. Every indication suggests you need a cofounder to achieve success in a VC startup where momentum matters most. In the bootstrapped startup it appears an individual founder is fine so long as the business is built on a valid premise: product excellence and some customer or business partner willing to endure your early failures.
  - yc-kraln 4y ago
    100% agree. Looking at a bootstrapped business, or a kickstarter project, and extrapolating to the wider world of founding a company (in particular, VC-backed companies) is a recipe for unneccesary pain.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > solo founders are not only the (extremely large) exception, but they also have lower valuations and success rates Isn't this exactly what the author is talking about. That the VC industry biases against solo founders and so they end up with less term sheets during a round and thus lower valuation and lower success rate.
phendrenad2 4y ago
This really only works if you're initially profitable. If you're growth hacking and need to lean on VC money to get to some critical inflection point of profitability, you'll never get there because VCs heavily favor duos. It makes sense, too. They don't want to leave their investment in the hands of one individual, a single point of failure.
karls 4y ago
Having co-founded an extremely tiny company that went nowhere, but during the operation of which I got to taste what it means to be in a very stressful environment with another person, I think if I were to start another venture, I'd also go solo and lean on a business coach, therapist or some sort of circle of likeminded people. On the face of it, it seems like a good route — a neutral third party is able offer (professional) support, punch holes into your thinking, reflect back, ask great questions etc, without sacrificing your freedom and equity. Curious if solo-founder folks have tried the business coach approach and how does it compare?
miiiiiike 4y ago
Unless you went to grade school together, have been working together closely for a decade, or everyone is very professional, there’s no point. If you’re getting a co-founder for any reason other than the need and want to add this person as a co-founder, you’re in for a world of hurt. These stories aren’t mine to tell so I won’t recount them in detail.. But, my god, you know how some people lose a friend group after a breakup? Imagine losing seven years of work and your standing in an industry because of a person you brought into your company four months before launch. Imagine not even wanting to bring them in in the first place. Nope. Build a company and hire good people.
cj 4y ago
Being a solo founder means you start out owning 100% of the company, instead of 50%, or 33% if you have 3 co-founders. At my company, this means on average employees receive double the average equity given by other startups because there's more of it available to be shared. As a solo founder, once you get past the initial hurdles of building the MVP, etc, and enter scale/growth mode, I highly recommend finding and hiring a COO. A good CEO/COO relationship is essentially the same as a founder/founder relationship.
netmonk 4y ago
I remember meeting a business angel like late 90 early 2000. It was just a lunch for chit chatting no project involved. One of the key point of what he shared this day was: « i only invest in project where there is an explicit and mutually agreed exit strategy defined ». This was the best indicator for him of the seriousness of the candidates.
- varispeed 4y ago
  Akin to "pump and dump". They don't look to create product that makes a difference while making money, but at making money only. That's a red flag and I would never work with someone like that.
  - netmonk 4y ago
    When you get married most of the time you don’t even consider « what if » divorce. Exit strategy is all about divorcing with your married co-founder partner. Most un-forçasted divorce are disaster for one side or both. Same apply with business partner, only looking at the honey-moon without never considering that one day you may divorce and should talk seriously about mitigating all the consequences before it occurs, is the best path to failure and bankruptcy . Divorce is the first cause of personal bankruptcy in the world cause 99% of people never prepare for a potential divorce years before. When you are young and broke at univ dorm it’s easy to share a commun fighting spirit with another and everything run smoothly. Year after when $ millions are at stake, it often turn out that lake of legal preparation is an open door for lot of dirty jobs.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
So we are going to have a discussion of 'Should you have a co-founder' without any analysis of different types of co-founder relationships, how to find the right partners, how it might be different for different industries, skills, personalitites, anything? I am sorry, but the entire thread had the maturity of a 14 year old emo going 'society sucks man'
Whatboard 4y ago
Actually, solo-founding is INCREDIBLY difficult and taxing. If anyone is looking to become a co-founder of whatboard.app with me... reach out. Looking for someone who has either raised money before, or who is deeply technical.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Biologist123 4y ago
I was interviewed for YC and not accepted for the reason that I didn’t have a cofounder. The rejection email said that otherwise it was very close. I was obviously a little disappointed to be rejected, but (1) I’d had experience of co-founders before - they create as many problems as they solve, and (2) after some reflection after the YC rejection, I ended up bootstrapping the business and I’ve been able to create something free of the stresses of investors and more aligned to my own personal objectives.
prirun 4y ago
> "All IP belongs to the company we’ll form. This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea.” Please don't do this - it's way too simplified. Who gets the company assets and liabilities when you split? You can't just split a 50/50 company; each asset and liability has to be given to one or the other, including the company itself.
peter_retief 4y ago
I have looked at getting a co-founder but decided to stay solo. For me being solo is good, was never convinced about the benefits of having a partner. I do work with others on aspects of my projects.
breck 4y ago
This is one of the best pieces of startup thought out there recently. So I had to dig a little, and found out it's by the creator of Teamflow, which the last team I was a part of (in the UK) used and was amazing. Not surprised.
chucklenorris 4y ago
I absolutely despise these "considered harmful" posts. They make an argument from authority which ironically most authors don't even have. If the first "considered harmful" paper was written by Dijkstra on an underlying consensus in the software development community that he was verbalising, now everyone with a controversial thought is slapping this clickbait poop in the title. Even worse, it devalues the ideas in the article, like the ideas themselves weren't good enough to begin with.
randall 4y ago
It's really difficult to be a solo founder. There's a lot of mental health stuff with starting a startup that someone might not realize outright. Flo is very different from most founders, imo. He's a silicon valley veteran and knows what he's doing... he's not a "typical" founder in the sense of being new to the industry and building something big before learning the ways of silicon valley. I mention this to say, for him specifically, founding his company this way was the best way to be successful. Kyle Vogt from Cruise (and JTV / Twitch) also comes to mind as another SV veteran who started solo but added a close friend (Daniel Kan) later on. Flo's advice is pretty on point I'd argue. I was a solo founder who added 3 other cofounders (in terms of equity) later in our journey. We had worked together for multiple years by that point, and they were CRUCIAL to the business succeeding. If any of them left, our company simply wouldn't have worked at all. We didn't succeed in building a successful long term business, but our tech and team joined meta in 2018. I have never once regretted them as cofounders. Originally I had a part-time "cofounder" who really siphoned off equity, but did little else in the grand scheme of the product. He was useful in moving the company forward, turning it from a science project into a real company, but I didn't know him and mostly was just looking for a cofounder because it was the thing to do. I got into YC after firing him, and didn't add my "new cofounders" till 2 years after YC. There is no one solution. Trustworthy cofounders who feel like people you would go to war with are great. Mercenaries are terrible.
muggermuch 4y ago
This is very useful; thank you for the wonderful blog post!
jlbbellefeuille 4y ago
Could it be that many “solo” founded businesses never make it out of the garage stage, never incorporate, don’t pass go and their data is not being tracked? Or perhaps, the meme exists to mitigate risk for VCs. Just in case the founder they invested a billion dollars into gets hit by a bus. (A non zero chance) I agree that team conflict harms many companies, and is often cited as a common reason for startups failing. However, I like to say starting a business is like raising a child, the child benefits from have two parents compared to one, But a village is even better.
silexia 4y ago
Myths perpetuated by VCs: -You need a cofounder -You need investors -You need a board Just build a great product and focus on your customers and it will self fund and you will have zero non essential people.

A very well written article. The title is a bit clickbaity especially since the article doesn't drive hard towards that conclusion, but all the better for the article. As a serial entrepreneur I can say his tactical advice is rooted in experience.

rogerkirkness 4y ago

This didn't mention the expected value of the outcome by co-founder status, which to me would be the most important consideration and likely supports having one.

bckr 4y ago
They did mention that the valuation would be lower as a solo, and offered the mitigation strategy of lining up potential first hires as a way to raise more.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

"X considered harmful" considered very overused.

saghm 4y ago
Or put another way, "Considered harmful" is considered harmful: https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

cercatrova 4y ago

Based on my prior experiences, I am thoroughly convinced of wanting to be a solo founder going forward. I know the statistics of VCs and whatnot are conducive to co-founder startups but I just don't care. It's liberating to work by oneself.

uup 4y ago
It’s liberating but also tiring. Sometimes it’s nice to have someone to lean on. To commiserate with. To share success with. And no one is perfect. It’s nice to have someone fill in your weaknesses. I solo founded once. I won’t do it again. It’s too lonely. And I’m not even a social person.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Your argument is covered in the article just FYI in case you haven't read it yet.
  - uup 4y ago
    The argument isn’t a that convincing. Basically, instead of having a good co-founder you could have a bad one. I don’t know enough about the data used to comment on that aspect. Perhaps, statistically, it really is better to found solo. I’m just sharing my personal experience. Having founded solo once, I won’t do it again.
    - eins1234 4y ago
      I think the counter argument in the article that was more relevant was the grass is always greener on the other side part. It's hard to form an informed opinion until we've been on both sides. Though I think it's totally valid to want to try the cofounder approach if you've tried the solo approach and just totally hated it and never want to do it again. I think there are probably also plenty of founders out there who have had a bad cofounder experience and would only consider solo-founding for their next venture.
      - uup 4y ago
        I guess I should have clarified that I've done both. For me, personally, having co-founders was more fun and more successful. YMMV of course :)
        4y ago

indus 4y ago

Doesn’t YC recommend a non-solo team. Solo founder startups are most likely to get rejected?

julianeon 4y ago
I think the difference is VC-backed startups need to achieve a larger scale, for which more than one person is needed.
- indus 4y ago
  But that team could be non founders..early engineers, hired guns, mercenaries,…
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    You don't want mercenaries running your company.
    - indus 4y ago
      I was making a point around building a team…
RayVR 4y ago
I don’t think you are “most likely to get rejected” IIRC, they have a preference for founders > 1 but it is not a strict rule. From an investment perspective this makes sense for a number of reasons. Diversification at the top decision maker level may be seen as beneficial. Bus factor is greater than or equal to 1. (vs exactly 1 for a solid founder) if a solo founder decides to pack it in or is the victim of a bus accident, the probability the startup will survive, in the early stages and maybe much longer, is approximately zero. Separation of concerns may be possible. Sales/marketing/anything non-technical + technical is a powerful combination if both are scrappy. Getting a solo founder that’s good at both is exceedingly rare. I am certain the list goes on and I may not have even touched on the most important points that YC values. My own experience, however, is that if you are not selecting cofounders from a pool that meets or exceeds your own level of ambition/dedication and skill, you are almost certainly going to fail. I would argue, if you don’t have access to the right people in your network when you form your initial business, the odds are much better if you wait and take on a cofounder at a later time, even if it feels like they weren’t there for the beginning. If your startup is remotely successful the future will be much longer than the short history of your company and the benefits of having a good cofounder will outweigh whatever equity you give up.

evrydayhustling 4y ago

The study this relies on has big limitations that should be noted. - It is based on Kickstarter data only, which tend to be specific business models. - The metric of success is a self-reported "still alive" status, not valuation or other size criteria. Results can be equally explained as "solo founders are less likely to officially close failed businesses than teams".

evrydayhustling 4y ago

teaearlgraycold 4y ago
Seems like a business is likely to fall apart if just one of the founders leaves. One founder gives you a success probability of P. Two is P*P. P*P is less than P unless success was 100%.
- beambot 4y ago
  At the time that one founder leaves... The company with a solo founder fails 100% of the time, whereas the company with 2+ founders frequently survives to keep trying.

ccvannorman 4y ago

Startup Compass did longiutdinal data (NOT Kickstarter biased data) and showed that 2 is the optimal number for a cofounding team to succeed, followed by 3, 1, and 4.

Lienetic 4y ago
Do you by chance have a link to that study? I did some Googling but I'm not sure whether I found what you are referring to. Is it the one that says that the optimal number of cofounders is 2.09?

neilv 4y ago

> This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea. Would that make it too easy to force out a co-founder, with nothing? Just make it so unpleasant, in a game of chicken, that they leave? Or to abandon a co-founder at the initial company, while taking know-how, customer/partner relationships, etc., and starting a new company doing the same thing that the initial company would do, but with a clean slate on sharing equity (co-founders and past investors)? I'd guess an evil investor might like this agreement, so long as they'll be benefiting from the evil (e.g., cutting out a co-founder's share of equity). But what about investors who don't want the risk of losing to evil (e.g., know-how and relationships built with their money, leaving to found competitor in which they have no equity)?

preommr 4y ago

I've been a solo developer for many years now. It's definitely a skill that takes time to develop. Almost as much as trying to work with others. The main difference is that other people are much more of an unknown variable. That first additional worker is a major first hurdle. Putting it off until later can make it even more daunting. Solo-dev means that certain verticals become very easy, e.g. the technicals. But a successful business has 2-3 really important parts that are more "horizontal" like good communication or business skills. Having multiple people really increases the easy of filling in that gap. In fact, I am really curious how other solo-devs solve these problems. From what I've seen, they basically don't and get by because the competition is sparse or they get lucky and they get help from not another founder, but someone that is heavily invested and acts as a strong advisor. There's also the option of just doing everything yourself by learning to be good at multiple things and taking much longer. Which is pretty high risk in that it's very sink or swim since those additional skills are unlikely to ever be useful outside of the startup the founder is working on. It's what I opted for, and we'll so how that works out.

DenisM 4y ago
>There's also the option of just doing everything yourself by learning to be good at multiple things and taking much longer. It will likely take a lot longer than you expect, sucking your whole life into it. Set a hard stop for yourself ahead of time, so that you know when to quit and try something else in life.
cercatrova 4y ago
What I did is the latter, learning everything. It's really not as hard as it sounds, due to the Pareto principle. I taught myself most of what I needed regarding sales, marketing, and design, enough to sell my products. Not sure why you say the skills aren't useful outside of the startup, sales for example is extremely good at teaching interpersonal communication.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  The main problem with doing it all yourself is the time sink/cost eventually becomes an issue, especially since in my experience communications/marketing/sales and programming/technical work tend to involve exactly opposite working styles and requirements: Programming and other technical work really benefits from long periods of uninterrupted work, whereas sales/customer service/marketing is very 'you work when the work needs done'. (I'm a programmer who worked in communications a bit.) Learning all aspects of running a business is definitely plausible, but actually doing all the work becomes a logistical nightmare of opportunity costs very quickly.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

Anyone have experience with cofounder agreements which pre-negotiate a buyout price (via some kind of algorithm) such that either cofounder can buy the other out without question later on? To avoid drawn out and painful separation negotiations later on for even simple cases such as one side losing interest.

dasil003 4y ago

A lot of talk here about the flaws in the study. I gotta say, founding a startup is not a numbers game, if you see it that way you've already lost. It's about the founder(s): their vision, their judgement, their force-of-will, and most of all, what they do every day. The pros and cons of solo vs group founding are well analyzed, but for your startup, the one trying to build something from nothing, the data tells you nothing, it's just the noise of averages which is utterly irrelevant to your specific situation as a founder. The only thing that matter is what you are doing each day in your vertical. Are you making progress? Do you have traction? Is it working? I'm not saying solo vs group isn't significant. It is. But you have to make a call and run with it. Reading more articles about it won't help. Everyone's situation is different. Successful entrepreneurs are above all resourceful. Don't get caught playing house.

antupis 4y ago
I would say if you know that you can sell and code then go solo otherwise find partner.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  Be honest with yourself about your weaknesses, and try to hire people who can fill in for them. But don't ever give them control over your vision.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    this sounds like it doesn't come from a place of enlightenment. It sounds like it stems from insecurity. People on shrooms have visions too. Putin doesn't let anyone control his vision. Both would be better off listening
    - doctor_eval 4y ago
      We’re talking about starting a business here. If you don’t have a vision for it, why the hell would you go to the trouble? I’m writing from experience.

braingenious 4y ago

I always like to poke fun at the “How to deal with being the smartest person in the room/industry/world”-style blog posts that make for common front-page schlock here, but this is a fascinating and relatively rare sub-species of “You ARE the smartest person in the room/industry/world. Anyone that suggests otherwise is ‘considered harmful’” I love that the extension of this is “making friends considered harmful”, “trusting others considered harmful”, “forming professional relationships considered harmful (unless they’re subservient to your supreme vision, intellect and command)” This reads like a very angry breakup letter.

_xnmw 4y ago
False dichotomy. Going out on your own doesn't mean you think you are the smartest person in the room. It's often about freedom. If I decide I want to go biking alone, doesn't mean I think I am the best biker. I decided to keep going the solo-founder route precisely so that my social circle could be enlarged and enriched. Now I don't have to spend most of my time around tech bros and cofounders whose main interest in business. Instead, I cultivate my social relationships in completely unrelated domains: the arts, community outreach, my physical neighbourhood, religion/philosophy and other hobbies. That gives me both the motivation and the space to think and keep going at the business, because my work fuels something other than itself.
- braingenious 4y ago
  I’m glad that worked out for you professionally and socially, but what exactly are you saying here? If you had a co-founder you wouldn’t have time for friends that are into art, philosophy, religion, neighborhoods, hobbies? edit: To clarify, if I had a business partner that cost me that much, I would definitely sever from that relationship. I would consider that a failure of a single relationship rather than waxing poetic about how everybody would cost that much. To do so would be for me to put myself above theoretical individuals because of a single event. That probably wouldn’t be the sort of error that I would see as reasonable when thinking about anybody I’d maybe do business with…
- kossTKR 4y ago

eins1234 4y ago

At the end of the day, I don't think there's a right choice here. Either way we choose to go, with or without a cofounder, starting a startup is just damn hard, and either path has a ton of potential pitfalls, so the best we can do is just pick the path that better suits our life situation/preferences. FWIW, the actual recommendations in the article are a lot more nuanced than the rather inflammatory title. I for one appreciated it, if nothing more than as something to counter the prevailing propaganda in the valley around how having a cofounder always increases your chances to succeed, even though cofounder conflict consistently ranks as one of the top startup killers. I especially concur with the conjecture that "cofounder dating" (and services that facilitate and encourage it) likely leads overwhelmingly to bad outcomes for the vast majority of cases, and people might have better chances to succeed as a solo founder than to resort to founding with someone they've been on just a handful of "dates" with.

andrewmcwatters 4y ago

This is a not often talked about topic that I'd like more data on, or simply more case studies. IIRC, Y Combinator takes the stance that they'd highly prefer two founders over a solo founder. Maybe this is exclusively a networking or proximity problem but considering the tech circles I run in internationally, there just isn't an abundant amount of people I want to do business with as partners. And frankly, yes, it is because most people are woefully underqualified. There are undoubtedly people on HN that you and I run into on a regular reading basis who have more knowledge in a random technical space than most people on the planet. There just aren't a ton of us the further you go in. Let's not get carried away here, one person working in ANY space in the world for a short amount of time making the right decisions can very quickly become a top 1% knowledge carrier in a field with low intellectual barriers to entry. When you hear people you think are bragging about being a top person in their field, the reality is more like there are only 10,000 participants in 7 billion people on the planet, and 20% of those 10,000 are actively working on their problem. I've considered cofounders twice, maybe three times, in my life. As far as my experience takes me, they're not frequent occurrences. You will have an expiration on how many life experiences will allow you the affordances to meet these types of people organically. Otherwise, you need to find a cofounder through a Y Combinator-like space. And frankly, I don't see the value in that other than the immediate logarithmic fall-off of early labor split between two members with skin in the game. So the probability space is already working against you. I'm certain there is an obvious flaw with my thinking like, having to cofounders with specialties across two spaces is undervalued, but even then you just are not going to run into enough people in your life who you're going to say, yes I want to do business with this person for 10-20+ years. Warren Buffetts and Charlie Mungers or otherwise good friends, true partners in business, are not popping up left and right. You can't pick one up at your corner store Circle K. Edit: There are other cofounders besides technical ones, but the same truths hold across disciplines as well.

onion2k 4y ago
Maybe this is exclusively a networking or proximity problem but considering the tech circles I run in internationally, there just isn't an abundant amount of people I want to do business with as partners. And frankly, yes, it is because most people are woefully underqualified. I think this is the attitude tech accelerators are actively trying to avoid when they look for startups with more than one founder. The most important thing by far in a startup is the ability of the founders to work with other people - to be successful in an accelwrator you'll need to work with the accelerator team, other founders, investors, people you hire, and your customers. Having a co-founder or two is a strong signal that you can do that. You will have no control whatsoever over who most of those people are, or how "qualified" they might be. You have to have the ability to get on well with them and work with them no matter what. That doesn't mean you can't be a solo founder and succeed. People do that. It just means you're much less likely to succeed in an accelerator if you can't demonstrate the ability to work well with others.

Existenceblinks 4y ago

Co-founders bring psychological interrupt operated randomly regardless of activities. Having people to point fingers to around in stressful environment and condition, that's the best place to raising evils.

skrebbel 4y ago

Fwiw I don’t think my company would still be around today if I had started it alone instead of with my co-founder. You gotta be lucky to get along, and we get along disgustingly well. We hardly knew each other when we started and now it feels like we’ve been besties since primary school or something. That’s pure luck, like so many things. But the way we’ve carried each other through hard times is, to me, irreplaceable.

bdominy 4y ago

Having a co-founder is a simple way to show you have an idea other people may actually buy into. Credibility is crucial and people like quick assurances. It's like having a degree from an Ivy League school.

dfee 4y ago
Then it’s the first vanity metric.

mirzap 4y ago

Success is all about network(ing). No matter how good your product is if you don't have network of people to approach and sell, you won't succeed. More people join together - bigger the network, more potential customers. It's harder due internal structure and struggles, sure. It's ok to be solo founder, it has it's perks. If that is what makes you happy, go for it. But to consider co-founding harmful is simply wrong, it's not what we see in practice for the last couple of decades.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pkrumins 4y ago
Success is all about SEO rankings. If you rank well, they will come and you will sell.
- mirzap 4y ago
  Funny you mention SEO. SEO is good example how network impacts your reach. SEO ranking is all about the network. You can't have good SEO ranking without network (other people and websites referencing to you). So network wins, again. More people you know and share your product in early phase, the better. They will mention it in social, on their blogs etc. If you knew few people, fewer people will knew for you too.
  - pkrumins 4y ago
    gg
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

malikNF 4y ago

At the end of the day, there are people who succeeded solo and then there are those who succeeded with a cofounder(s). Guess theres no one “only” way to do it. Suppose you gotta do what feels right for you, experiment, iterate and find something that makes you happy to do what you do. If I am not happy doing something solo whats the use going solo and If I am not happy co-founding whats the use of doing it with a team?

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

Ideas are a dime a dozen, but workmanship costs real time and money. No sane investor will touch a company that lacks the resources to complete their project. The number one warning sign a company is doomed, is when the senior technical staff jump ship. Also, many successful co-founders end up hating each other by the end of a project, and often end up in epic legal battles. Getting your contracts clearly settled early does help prevent tax shenanigans that can hit a small firm hard. Example: if an ex-employee claims dependent contractor status on a return, than a business could be on the hook for a $70k government tax/pension bill. Founders syndrome is an ugly disease, that quickly rots a firm back into a $90k glass-ceiling business. ;)

rixrax 4y ago

Being co-founders is 'just' like marriage. Some marriages work, others don't. But when it works, it is really great. And just like in marriages, the ones that actually work, are statistically speaking a rare thing. And when they don't work, they can get ugly in variety of ways. Whether it's a marriage, or being a co-founder, understanding that you're in it for a long term, keeping a cool head, managing expectations, talking, apologising, and never humiliating the other goes a long way.

pazimzadeh 4y ago

This post does not expose the fact that all of the companies analyzed in this study were crowdfunded. It seems like they didn't look at the current most successful companies founding history. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898

quickthrower2 4y ago

I wonder if it should be "advice" considered harmful in general. There is SOOOOOO much business advice, and taking it all seriously can paint you in to a corner of paralysis.

Silverback_VII 4y ago
The problem is that the economy is not a very valid environment in which get useful & timely feedback. It's therefore almost impossible to become an expert. Moreover I think a large part of sucess is people skills. But there are certainly some key aspects which do help a lot: - Start with why(Simon Sinek) - Move (preferably were there is higher return - similar to hill climbing algorithms) - Discipline, Focus & Persistence - Improve your social intelligence - Learn about power dynamics (Power from Jeffrey Pfeffer)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

c7b 4y ago

spullara 4y ago

Please ignore this unless they are a billionaire already after being a legit solo founder.

mgaunard 4y ago

This is silly. Delivering quality requires focus. Focus requires departmentalization. There is no value in the CEO spending time on finance, accounting or legal.

yc-kraln 4y ago

The first and most difficult person to convince that your crazy idea/company is going to be worth a billion is your first cofounder. "The research is based on a survey of creators for thousands of Kickstarter projects between 2009 and May 2015." Article is using kickstarter data, which was questionable in the beginning but now as kickstarter has greyed out would be even more questionable. What about using actual VC-backed company data? If you look there, solo founders are not only the (extremely large) exception, but they also have lower valuations and success rates. Founding a company is extremely difficult and there is a huge amount of stuff to take care of. If you cannot find someone(s) you can delegate a portion of that work to, you will suffer. It's a signal for investors because it's a huge buy-in to become a co-founder, and solo founders burn out all the time. Using kickstarter to share advice on VC isn't just misleading, it's downright harmful.

throwaway0asd 4y ago
I think there is a lot of research to qualify your opinion. A VC backed startup is a very different beast than a bootstrapped startup with a wildly different goal and trajectory. VC-backed startups must focus on market growth in order to make that next round of funding. Bootstrapped startups must focus on product and building strong personal relationships. Every indication suggests you need a cofounder to achieve success in a VC startup where momentum matters most. In the bootstrapped startup it appears an individual founder is fine so long as the business is built on a valid premise: product excellence and some customer or business partner willing to endure your early failures.
- yc-kraln 4y ago
  100% agree. Looking at a bootstrapped business, or a kickstarter project, and extrapolating to the wider world of founding a company (in particular, VC-backed companies) is a recipe for unneccesary pain.
threeseed 4y ago
> solo founders are not only the (extremely large) exception, but they also have lower valuations and success rates Isn't this exactly what the author is talking about. That the VC industry biases against solo founders and so they end up with less term sheets during a round and thus lower valuation and lower success rate.

phendrenad2 4y ago

This really only works if you're initially profitable. If you're growth hacking and need to lean on VC money to get to some critical inflection point of profitability, you'll never get there because VCs heavily favor duos. It makes sense, too. They don't want to leave their investment in the hands of one individual, a single point of failure.

karls 4y ago

Having co-founded an extremely tiny company that went nowhere, but during the operation of which I got to taste what it means to be in a very stressful environment with another person, I think if I were to start another venture, I'd also go solo and lean on a business coach, therapist or some sort of circle of likeminded people. On the face of it, it seems like a good route — a neutral third party is able offer (professional) support, punch holes into your thinking, reflect back, ask great questions etc, without sacrificing your freedom and equity. Curious if solo-founder folks have tried the business coach approach and how does it compare?

miiiiiike 4y ago

Unless you went to grade school together, have been working together closely for a decade, or everyone is very professional, there’s no point. If you’re getting a co-founder for any reason other than the need and want to add this person as a co-founder, you’re in for a world of hurt. These stories aren’t mine to tell so I won’t recount them in detail.. But, my god, you know how some people lose a friend group after a breakup? Imagine losing seven years of work and your standing in an industry because of a person you brought into your company four months before launch. Imagine not even wanting to bring them in in the first place. Nope. Build a company and hire good people.

cj 4y ago

Being a solo founder means you start out owning 100% of the company, instead of 50%, or 33% if you have 3 co-founders. At my company, this means on average employees receive double the average equity given by other startups because there's more of it available to be shared. As a solo founder, once you get past the initial hurdles of building the MVP, etc, and enter scale/growth mode, I highly recommend finding and hiring a COO. A good CEO/COO relationship is essentially the same as a founder/founder relationship.

netmonk 4y ago

I remember meeting a business angel like late 90 early 2000. It was just a lunch for chit chatting no project involved. One of the key point of what he shared this day was: « i only invest in project where there is an explicit and mutually agreed exit strategy defined ». This was the best indicator for him of the seriousness of the candidates.

varispeed 4y ago
Akin to "pump and dump". They don't look to create product that makes a difference while making money, but at making money only. That's a red flag and I would never work with someone like that.
- netmonk 4y ago
  When you get married most of the time you don’t even consider « what if » divorce. Exit strategy is all about divorcing with your married co-founder partner. Most un-forçasted divorce are disaster for one side or both. Same apply with business partner, only looking at the honey-moon without never considering that one day you may divorce and should talk seriously about mitigating all the consequences before it occurs, is the best path to failure and bankruptcy . Divorce is the first cause of personal bankruptcy in the world cause 99% of people never prepare for a potential divorce years before. When you are young and broke at univ dorm it’s easy to share a commun fighting spirit with another and everything run smoothly. Year after when $ millions are at stake, it often turn out that lake of legal preparation is an open door for lot of dirty jobs.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

So we are going to have a discussion of 'Should you have a co-founder' without any analysis of different types of co-founder relationships, how to find the right partners, how it might be different for different industries, skills, personalitites, anything? I am sorry, but the entire thread had the maturity of a 14 year old emo going 'society sucks man'

Whatboard 4y ago

Actually, solo-founding is INCREDIBLY difficult and taxing. If anyone is looking to become a co-founder of whatboard.app with me... reach out. Looking for someone who has either raised money before, or who is deeply technical.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Biologist123 4y ago

I was interviewed for YC and not accepted for the reason that I didn’t have a cofounder. The rejection email said that otherwise it was very close. I was obviously a little disappointed to be rejected, but (1) I’d had experience of co-founders before - they create as many problems as they solve, and (2) after some reflection after the YC rejection, I ended up bootstrapping the business and I’ve been able to create something free of the stresses of investors and more aligned to my own personal objectives.

prirun 4y ago

> "All IP belongs to the company we’ll form. This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea.” Please don't do this - it's way too simplified. Who gets the company assets and liabilities when you split? You can't just split a 50/50 company; each asset and liability has to be given to one or the other, including the company itself.

peter_retief 4y ago

I have looked at getting a co-founder but decided to stay solo. For me being solo is good, was never convinced about the benefits of having a partner. I do work with others on aspects of my projects.

breck 4y ago

This is one of the best pieces of startup thought out there recently. So I had to dig a little, and found out it's by the creator of Teamflow, which the last team I was a part of (in the UK) used and was amazing. Not surprised.

chucklenorris 4y ago

I absolutely despise these "considered harmful" posts. They make an argument from authority which ironically most authors don't even have. If the first "considered harmful" paper was written by Dijkstra on an underlying consensus in the software development community that he was verbalising, now everyone with a controversial thought is slapping this clickbait poop in the title. Even worse, it devalues the ideas in the article, like the ideas themselves weren't good enough to begin with.

randall 4y ago

It's really difficult to be a solo founder. There's a lot of mental health stuff with starting a startup that someone might not realize outright. Flo is very different from most founders, imo. He's a silicon valley veteran and knows what he's doing... he's not a "typical" founder in the sense of being new to the industry and building something big before learning the ways of silicon valley. I mention this to say, for him specifically, founding his company this way was the best way to be successful. Kyle Vogt from Cruise (and JTV / Twitch) also comes to mind as another SV veteran who started solo but added a close friend (Daniel Kan) later on. Flo's advice is pretty on point I'd argue. I was a solo founder who added 3 other cofounders (in terms of equity) later in our journey. We had worked together for multiple years by that point, and they were CRUCIAL to the business succeeding. If any of them left, our company simply wouldn't have worked at all. We didn't succeed in building a successful long term business, but our tech and team joined meta in 2018. I have never once regretted them as cofounders. Originally I had a part-time "cofounder" who really siphoned off equity, but did little else in the grand scheme of the product. He was useful in moving the company forward, turning it from a science project into a real company, but I didn't know him and mostly was just looking for a cofounder because it was the thing to do. I got into YC after firing him, and didn't add my "new cofounders" till 2 years after YC. There is no one solution. Trustworthy cofounders who feel like people you would go to war with are great. Mercenaries are terrible.

muggermuch 4y ago

This is very useful; thank you for the wonderful blog post!

jlbbellefeuille 4y ago

Could it be that many “solo” founded businesses never make it out of the garage stage, never incorporate, don’t pass go and their data is not being tracked? Or perhaps, the meme exists to mitigate risk for VCs. Just in case the founder they invested a billion dollars into gets hit by a bus. (A non zero chance) I agree that team conflict harms many companies, and is often cited as a common reason for startups failing. However, I like to say starting a business is like raising a child, the child benefits from have two parents compared to one, But a village is even better.

silexia 4y ago

Myths perpetuated by VCs: -You need a cofounder -You need investors -You need a board Just build a great product and focus on your customers and it will self fund and you will have zero non essential people.