The VC industry biases on historical outcomes, and their own lived experiences--like any process that involves humans. The author also mentions starting a techn

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.