3 ms·
This was the logical next step, but they seem to have something against solo founders, and I am averse to taking on a co-founder ONLY to appease. Edit: Not opp
by r_z_ 12y ago
This was the logical next step, but they seem to have something against solo founders, and I am averse to taking on a co-founder ONLY to appease.
Edit: Not opposed to taking on a cofounder if they provide an adequate amount of value other than pacifying incubator/accelerator/investor fears.
- dennybritz 12y agoYou're right in that there's a negative bias towards solo founders, but having traction trumps that to a large degree. I would give it a shot.
- erichocean 12y agoPart of the aversion is because, to succeed, you will have to hire people. Investors don't invest in companies that don't need to hire people. So, when you're a solo founder, it gives the vibe that you haven't figured that out yet (you won't even get another founder, even though it takes no cash, you have traction, etc.). So, to counter that bias, just make it clear in your application that hiring people, finding a co-founder, etc. is VERY high on your priority list at the incubator. Good luck!