3 ms·

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

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.
- yc-kraln 4y ago
  The VC industry biases on historical outcomes, and their own lived experiences--like any process that involves humans. The author also mentions starting a technical company without any technical expertise, and a few other questionable things which aren't just questionable because of prevailing common knowledge but questionable because it's unsupported also by the research they are citing. The take away, even assuming that "on paper" solo founding is better, if you want to start a VC-backed company (or a company which will eventually raise VC money) this really isn't the topic to get quixotic about and you should get at least one co-founder so you can improve your chances. A VC-backed company, as opposed to a kickstarter project, is a company which starts from zero and then is worth a billion dollars in five years. That involves exponential growth and stress which, unless you've attempted it, you can't even imagine. Potential solo founders: knock yourselves out, but when you've gotten your 100th "no" and your cash reserves are running on fumes, this author and their flawed research paper they are citing out of context will be of little comfort.
  - lioeters 4y ago
    I think what GP is implying is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: VCs are biased against solo founders because historically and culturally they've been overlooked/undersupported by VCs.
    - yc-kraln 4y ago
      Indeed, and I am highlighting that the actionable take-away for someone considering founding a vc-backed startup solo is: don't. You're fighting uphill enough, no need to make it tougher.
      - threeseed 4y ago
        Except that there is no objective evidence that being a solo founder is harder.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    But again. The VC industry is biased on historical outcomes which itself is biased on historical outcomes. So what the VC industry does or has done is not a relevant source of objective data. I do agree that solo founders should probably find a co-founder in order to raise but that has nothing to do with potential success and everything to do with optimising for what VCs expect.

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.

yc-kraln 4y ago
The VC industry biases on historical outcomes, and their own lived experiences--like any process that involves humans. The author also mentions starting a technical company without any technical expertise, and a few other questionable things which aren't just questionable because of prevailing common knowledge but questionable because it's unsupported also by the research they are citing. The take away, even assuming that "on paper" solo founding is better, if you want to start a VC-backed company (or a company which will eventually raise VC money) this really isn't the topic to get quixotic about and you should get at least one co-founder so you can improve your chances. A VC-backed company, as opposed to a kickstarter project, is a company which starts from zero and then is worth a billion dollars in five years. That involves exponential growth and stress which, unless you've attempted it, you can't even imagine. Potential solo founders: knock yourselves out, but when you've gotten your 100th "no" and your cash reserves are running on fumes, this author and their flawed research paper they are citing out of context will be of little comfort.
- lioeters 4y ago
  I think what GP is implying is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: VCs are biased against solo founders because historically and culturally they've been overlooked/undersupported by VCs.
  - yc-kraln 4y ago
    Indeed, and I am highlighting that the actionable take-away for someone considering founding a vc-backed startup solo is: don't. You're fighting uphill enough, no need to make it tougher.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Except that there is no objective evidence that being a solo founder is harder.
- threeseed 4y ago
  But again. The VC industry is biased on historical outcomes which itself is biased on historical outcomes. So what the VC industry does or has done is not a relevant source of objective data. I do agree that solo founders should probably find a co-founder in order to raise but that has nothing to do with potential success and everything to do with optimising for what VCs expect.