I tried a co-founder. He had a lot to offer. But too soon he wanted to do no work and be a bitch on the team. So, I had to break off with him. "Co-founder d

I tried a co-founder. He had a lot to offer. But too soon he wanted to do no work and be a bitch on the team. So, I had to break off with him. "Co-founder disputes"? Yup, they are likely. The result is, I've just had to do more of the work, say, serially instead of in parallel. That's not all bad: (1) I understand more of the work, really all of it, because I did all of it (the co-founder and I broke off before he contributed anything). (2) I saved time and effort coordinating with a co-founder. Sure, a VC might say, "That your candidate co-founder didn't do much suggests that he was not really impressed with the project. In that case, neither am I." But there's another explanation: Often some people just don't want to get along. To get someone to work reasonably hard, one approach is to have a big, successful company, pay enough to support a wife and family, and have the wife with two young kids and with one more in the oven. Two guys in a garage don't meet this criterion. I'm plenty motivated; he wasn't. My view is, for as much as he had to bring, still he had some serious flaws in his character. So, find another co-founder? Not so easy. Easier just to do the work! For a co-founder, some of the usual recommendations are to select someone with good paper qualifications and have known and worked well with for years. Okay, my list of such people is exhausted. So, net, I'm a solo founder. Again, the US, border to border, from crossroads, villages, and towns up to the largest cities, is just awash with solo founders of successful Main Street sole proprietorships. So, for a business where the initial work is just typing code into a computer to be used as a Web server, being a solo founder seems fully promising to me, even if VCs don't like it.