On the co-founder thing, being a "co-founder" doesn't mean you're also endowed with as much authority as all the othe co-founders. In most circumstances one of

On the co-founder thing, being a "co-founder" doesn't mean you're also endowed with as much authority as all the othe co-founders. In most circumstances one of the co-founders should be designated as the one in charge, given the responsibility of making the hard decisions. Being in charge doesn't mean you get to win every argument, as you don't want your co-founders to quit, but it definitely shouldn't be a thing where all the co-founders have equal decision making capabilities because that may lead to never-ending strife. Most decisions shouldn't be arbitrary anyway, a decision should come with a convincing argument. It's those hard decisions when none of the answers seem perfect where you need someone to win out even though it may not feel right. The leadership structure should be determined when the founding team forms, so there's no ambiguity later and each person needs to decide then and there if they can live with the setup and thereafter stick to it.