3 ms·
"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 catastr
by 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 agoWhen 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.