4 ms·
It's really odd and kind a funny to me : Investor push toward 1:good product 2:low cost-of-running-company. This I can understand. Over the years the cost of
by tmilard 13y ago
It's really odd and kind a funny to me : Investor push toward 1:good product 2:low cost-of-running-company.
This I can understand.
Over the years the cost of building a start-up has gone very low, wich is a very very good for everyone involved (founders, investors, society at large).
In the end, One solo-founder vs two-menbers-founders company egals running-cost of the latter being half priced. To me this is a very very good number for early adopter investors.
So yes my oppinion (as a founder) is that inveTstors for startups should run for those solo-founders : This way, they could invest twice the number of startups for the same amount of money.
- onion2k 13y agoYou're ignoring the problems - you get half the bandwidth, you get zero bandwidth if anything goes wrong, most of the costs aren't halved - tools, servers, services etc still cost the same. Salaries, travel, and so on are, but those aren't very big costs at the start. Buying in marketing or development or whatever is much more expensive than having a founder doing it because founders are really, really cheap. My first startup was with a co-founder. My current one is as a single founder. Having someone else onboard is definitely better. If there was someone compentent around who shared my vision for Pitcher.io I'd definitely work with them.
- PeterisP 13y agoIn order to give any return and be useful to investors, you'll need to scale your company. Scaling from 3 people to, say, 30 is a non-trivial task that isn't always done well - and I'd feel that getting from 1 person to 30 is harder and carries more risk. Being a single founder instead of a team also is correlated (not always, but sometimes) with being the type of person who can't form a team easily - which would be a drawback for any such startup.