Based what I've read about this startup, and on the facts presented, it is difficult to tell whether Orian or his co-founders were in the right. It would requir

Based what I've read about this startup, and on the facts presented, it is difficult to tell whether Orian or his co-founders were in the right. It would require to place all of their efforts under a microscope - we don't know how much time Orian sacrificed to go out of his way to find venture funding, etc.. versus the other partners who may have been slaving away over the code. My guess on the whole venture falling through is this - the other partners felt like they were doing more work and putting in more into it than Orian was, probably because they felt that networking is a lightweight activity. Or because networking sounded to them like a more glamorous activity, rather than coding. Or, maybe because they felt they wanted an equal share in the leadership. Whatever the case may be, we don't know how much coding and networking took place. Orian's case brings up a good question that I've dealt with in the past, and I am sure is on the minds of many startup founders here - how important is it that the co-founders are all technical, and are all coders? Is it, "product first, marketing second?" Or is it equally just as important to have a strong "networking" guy on the team? If so, what are his roles, just networking, or coding as well? What about a guy who is doing the coding but feels he could do networking just as well, is it unfair to him? Going back to Orian... judging based on other factors, there seems to have been some trust impediments in my opinion - having two votes when all other things being equal is not a fair distribution, even for the sake of maintaining decision-making. Trust between partners is more important than decision making, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. Rather than take apart Orian's flaws, I am trying to understand if this startup could have been saved. What if Orian went to his parners, and said, "Guys, how about we all participate in the networking?" (Assuming he did his equal share of the coding by working on the demo.) Maybe this would have generated some further excitement and instilled trust in them? AND, it would become self-evident whether or NOT the networking efforts equaled the coding efforts. I know that some may argue this is not a good solution, because concentrating on networking would have further removed them from realizing a product, but at least it could have played a role in bringing the team back, which it sounds was their first priority. Another thing, higher visibility and transparency. If all the partners were stuck in the same office all day long, maybe this lack of trust would diminish? Maybe a regular status meeting to keep tabs on everyone's progress? What does everyone (including Orian) think, what would be possible solution in their case?