5 ms·

YC's take on Solo Founders?(See below.)

I understand this varies case by case, but I’m curious why YC places such a strong emphasis on having at least two co-founders. From my experience (I could be wrong), it seems like a very strong preference. I’ve built the MVP, getting strong signs of problem validation, and am close to securing POCs one mid- and one large-sized B2B customer. In this context, do I still need to worry about co-founder risks like mismatches or conflicts? While I know a team would help offload tasks, I’m unsure if a co-founder is essential. I’ve explored my network but haven’t found the right fit, and bringing in a stranger feels too risky. Why not start hiring a team instead of risking a mismatch with a co-founder? A hiring mistake is fixable, but a wrong co-founder could be a much bigger problem. I’d really appreciate help understanding what I might be missing. I deeply respect YC and have benefited greatly from their advice, but I’m struggling to align with this point. If any partners are reading this, thank you for everything you’ve done for the startup ecosystem!

codingdave 2y ago
> I’ve built the MVP, validated the problem, and am close to securing mid- and large-sized B2B customers. Take a bigger step back - if you are this far along, why do you need YC?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dustingetz 2y ago
i’d worry more about getting your application read, you ever go through a folder with 18,000 resumes in it? you fog out after like 3. recommendations are the answer to this
- ambitio_vision 2y ago
  This! Yes, I hired in the past with some positions having close to 1k applications. That's exactly why I am trying to understand their point on this. I am pretty much doing what I would expect from an applicant myself.
jarsin 2y ago
I was wondering the same thing recently and noticed PG recently replied to a post about more startups being founded by Solo Founders as "marketing". I've always had the impression they are very cautious about it. https://x.com/paulg/status/1876000096732733791 https://x.com/paulg/status/1876000096732733791 This is not a trend. It's just Carta marketing people trying to cultivate a new market. There have always been a huge number of bootstrapped, single-founder companies. What matters is how common they are among the most successful companies, not how common they are overall.
- ambitio_vision 2y ago
  What do you think would be a good way for solo founders to stand out from the crowd? I understand their points are valid, and I believe mine are too. It feels like both YC and solo founders could be missing out on great win-win opportunities. How can solo founders compensate for the lack of a co-founder to balance things out? I understand it’s more challenging, and we likely need to demonstrate more at the company level compared to startups with co-founders to get accepted into YC. But there has to be a way to overcome the negative perception of not having a co-founder. Any thoughts on what that might be?
  - jarsin 2y ago
    I think they want traction from solo founders so if I were you I would apply. Maybe say you are not against finding a cofounder if it comes to that. The most famous example I know of is Dropbox. They invested in him without a co-founder but he found one before starting YC. Hopefully others who actually know can shed more light.
    - ambitio_vision 2y ago
      Thanks. I am not against having a co-founder, I would love to have a co-founder, as long as they are the right person.
robocat 2y ago
Paul Graham from "The 18 mistakes that kill startups": #1 Single Founder Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence. What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best. But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong. The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder. From: https://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html https://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html Edit: also he writes in "What we look for in founders": 5. Friendship Empirically it seems to be hard to start a startup with just one founder. Most of the big successes have two or three. And the relationship between the founders has to be strong. They must genuinely like one another, and work well together. Startups do to the relationship between the founders what a dog does to a sock: if it can be pulled apart, it will be.

codingdave 2y ago

> I’ve built the MVP, validated the problem, and am close to securing mid- and large-sized B2B customers. Take a bigger step back - if you are this far along, why do you need YC?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dustingetz 2y ago

i’d worry more about getting your application read, you ever go through a folder with 18,000 resumes in it? you fog out after like 3. recommendations are the answer to this

ambitio_vision 2y ago
This! Yes, I hired in the past with some positions having close to 1k applications. That's exactly why I am trying to understand their point on this. I am pretty much doing what I would expect from an applicant myself.

jarsin 2y ago

I was wondering the same thing recently and noticed PG recently replied to a post about more startups being founded by Solo Founders as "marketing". I've always had the impression they are very cautious about it. https://x.com/paulg/status/1876000096732733791 https://x.com/paulg/status/1876000096732733791 This is not a trend. It's just Carta marketing people trying to cultivate a new market. There have always been a huge number of bootstrapped, single-founder companies. What matters is how common they are among the most successful companies, not how common they are overall.

ambitio_vision 2y ago
What do you think would be a good way for solo founders to stand out from the crowd? I understand their points are valid, and I believe mine are too. It feels like both YC and solo founders could be missing out on great win-win opportunities. How can solo founders compensate for the lack of a co-founder to balance things out? I understand it’s more challenging, and we likely need to demonstrate more at the company level compared to startups with co-founders to get accepted into YC. But there has to be a way to overcome the negative perception of not having a co-founder. Any thoughts on what that might be?
- jarsin 2y ago
  I think they want traction from solo founders so if I were you I would apply. Maybe say you are not against finding a cofounder if it comes to that. The most famous example I know of is Dropbox. They invested in him without a co-founder but he found one before starting YC. Hopefully others who actually know can shed more light.
  - ambitio_vision 2y ago
    Thanks. I am not against having a co-founder, I would love to have a co-founder, as long as they are the right person.

robocat 2y ago

Paul Graham from "The 18 mistakes that kill startups": #1 Single Founder Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence. What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best. But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong. The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder. From: https://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html https://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html Edit: also he writes in "What we look for in founders": 5. Friendship Empirically it seems to be hard to start a startup with just one founder. Most of the big successes have two or three. And the relationship between the founders has to be strong. They must genuinely like one another, and work well together. Startups do to the relationship between the founders what a dog does to a sock: if it can be pulled apart, it will be.