4 ms·

Are single startups that bad? Not necessarily. Single founder startups are inherently riskier than startups with multiple founders. That isn't to say that ris

Are single startups that bad? Not necessarily. Single founder startups are inherently riskier than startups with multiple founders. That isn't to say that risks can't be overcome though - there are plenty of of single founder startups doing very well. Odds are though, if you can't find a cofounder who believes in you and your idea, you are going to have a tough time finding customers to do the same. The comparison of 3 founders with no product to a single founder with a successful product sounds a lot like comparing Tiger Woods to a team of golfers. Sure the team has some advantages, but winning is what counts and I'd put my money on Tiger in that case.

_pius 17y ago
Single founder startups are inherently riskier than startups with multiple founders. That's stated without proof, but it sounds pretty controversial. What's your argument for why that's true? In my opinion, it's hard for a startup to die when it consists of one determined founder working without salary and with practically zero startup costs or commitments to payroll. As a matter of fact, it's practically impossible to kill such a business without literally killing the single founder. :)
- mrduncan 17y ago
  Right you are. I should have used a different word than "riskier" there as it doesn't really fit my intention. More precisely, I would say that single founder startups are less likely to succeed (therefore riskier to fund if you are funding them). I don't think that there is a coincidence that YC looks at single founder companies more carefully, or that pg listed being a single founder as the #1 mistake that kills startups [1]. Again though, there are plenty of success stories for single founders. I would posture that the ratio of companies which are ramen-profitible to those which aren't is higher for multiple founder startups however. 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
  - _pius 17y ago
    More precisely, I would say that single founder startups are less likely to succeed (therefore riskier to fund if you are funding them). I'd agree with that.
- flybrand 17y ago
  "without literally killing the single founder." is the proof that you note in the opening line. It's true based on your hit-by-the-bus risk alone. The catastrophic risk (something goes wrong with a founder, their family, etc.) is diffused by having a portfolio of founders. The business is a function of the people; lose a person lose the whole entity.
  - evgen 17y ago
    When you are talking about an early startup I think it is a reasonable assumption to say that loss of anyone on the core team is going to kill the startup. It might not die as quickly as a shop run by a solo founder, but it is on deaths door and knocking loudly. The only real benefit I perceive in a team over a sole founder is psychological; with co-founders you have people to challenge you (challenging both your assumptions/decisions and challenging you to constantly perform at a high level of productivity.) The biggest killer of solo startups is not accidents but rather frustration and fatigue, with a team you can have someone to pick up the slack if a founder starts getting burned out and you have someone to vent with when frustration levels start to rise.

_pius 17y ago

Single founder startups are inherently riskier than startups with multiple founders. That's stated without proof, but it sounds pretty controversial. What's your argument for why that's true? In my opinion, it's hard for a startup to die when it consists of one determined founder working without salary and with practically zero startup costs or commitments to payroll. As a matter of fact, it's practically impossible to kill such a business without literally killing the single founder. :)

mrduncan 17y ago
Right you are. I should have used a different word than "riskier" there as it doesn't really fit my intention. More precisely, I would say that single founder startups are less likely to succeed (therefore riskier to fund if you are funding them). I don't think that there is a coincidence that YC looks at single founder companies more carefully, or that pg listed being a single founder as the #1 mistake that kills startups [1]. Again though, there are plenty of success stories for single founders. I would posture that the ratio of companies which are ramen-profitible to those which aren't is higher for multiple founder startups however. 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
- _pius 17y ago
  More precisely, I would say that single founder startups are less likely to succeed (therefore riskier to fund if you are funding them). I'd agree with that.
flybrand 17y ago
"without literally killing the single founder." is the proof that you note in the opening line. It's true based on your hit-by-the-bus risk alone. The catastrophic risk (something goes wrong with a founder, their family, etc.) is diffused by having a portfolio of founders. The business is a function of the people; lose a person lose the whole entity.
- evgen 17y ago
  When you are talking about an early startup I think it is a reasonable assumption to say that loss of anyone on the core team is going to kill the startup. It might not die as quickly as a shop run by a solo founder, but it is on deaths door and knocking loudly. The only real benefit I perceive in a team over a sole founder is psychological; with co-founders you have people to challenge you (challenging both your assumptions/decisions and challenging you to constantly perform at a high level of productivity.) The biggest killer of solo startups is not accidents but rather frustration and fatigue, with a team you can have someone to pick up the slack if a founder starts getting burned out and you have someone to vent with when frustration levels start to rise.