The data shows that solo founders have no problem securing investment, yet the author concludes exactly the opposite.
Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
61–70 of 172 posts
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#62I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…
Interesting data point. However, we're happily chugging along with 6 co-founders, bootstrapped to currently 30 mln us$ valuation and we've only just begun. Then again, your point about "visionaries" (with which you probably mean high-ego people needing a lot of approval) rings true to me. We're all pretty low-key hard-working people with a lot of self-reflection and humility - also it helps it's not the usual failing…
Almost all people overestimate their knowledge of human nature.
I only know a few people who are truly able to judge people right. Most people with good relations are simply lucky.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#63This is pretty bad article because it focuses on # of funded startups, not # of attempted startups. What if 99.999% of startups attempted were attempted by solo founders? It would make you expect that the # of funded startups should also tilt towards solo founders - if all other odds were even, you'd expect 99.999% of funded startups to be solo founders, and it would not mean much.
Is the goal to get funded is the goal to succeed?
Success is the metric you want to measure, which is usually exit if not profitability.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#64After failure of my startup's first iteration, investigation and data made it clear my cofounder was at fault: - deals that made a loss - poor relationship management - investing way too much in blaming the team around her This ended up with a company seriously in the red, heading to liquidation and a completely fucked reputation. Iteration two: flying solo, small team and 18 months in, we are in profit and I've fixe…
Even if your cofounder has absolutely the best intentions, not everyone is cut out for it. It's very easy to be "Saying the right things" and not even aware they they aren't being honest.
In fact, I'd argue that %50 of the "co-founders" of YC startups are not actually ready to be founders, and I suspect that the number who are still with the startup 3 years after are very small. (and that a large number of the YC companies that don't exist after 3 years don't exist because of a bad choice in co-founder.)
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. I remember a beautiful family vacation that went wrong because as a solo founder everything that happened got routed to me. If you decide to go solo, you will start hiring very soon just to make stuff happening before you run out of bandwidth. And you'll need really high quality hires... wich need a lot of bandwidth to acquire so plan accordingly (if you can ;-).
Shouldn't they be considered founders too?
IMO, no.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#66The whole reason starting a startup is so stressful, and why you need co-founders, is because of the need for rocket growth to satisfy investors. Take out investors and you take out the need for ridiculous growth and the stress and the need for co-founders.
True, but that's not really building a "startup" anymore. That's just starting a business.
No it's still a startup. It can be a very high growth startup, shooting to a $100M valuation.
It's just not the wannabe unicorn that VCs want.
There's a HUGE gap between what VC wants and a "lifestyle business" (I hate that term, thanks for not using it.)
Redefining startup to be this very, very narrow set of "businesses that will be over $1B in valuation within 5 years" is wrong, it's silly, and it's getting worse.
9 years ago on Hacker News the difference between "lifestyle" and "startup" was "businesses that will reach over $100M valuation in 10 years."
=======
Reply to @danieltillett because HN won't let me submit 4 posts in an hour!
Put another way, I would take a %10 chance of having a $100M business over a %0.1 chance of having a $1B business. (assume in both cases you end owning %5 of the stock at exit, though realistically without VC money you'd likely own more equity percentage at $100M than at $1B)
VCs generally want you to take the second bet, even though the statistical value is 1/10th as much for you!
Worse, you can only found one business at a time, while the VCs can invest in dozens at the same time. So your risk is much higher (not even mentioning that they are investing OPM)
VCs interests are not aligned with founders.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#67But what is a co-founder exactly? I can't imagine a startup being started, built and brought to an exit by a single person -- every employee contributes to some extent, and in my view an early employee who contributed a great deal should in all fairness be considered a (minority) founder.
Being an early employee doesn't make you a founder, no matter your effort.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#68[deleted]
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#69I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…
> The problem I find (and one I've seen in a lot of cofounder groups) is that most of the people who want to start startups are visionaries. It's simpler than that. Most people just prefer slacking off to working their butts off. However it's the narcissists and sociopaths that will call their slacking off being "visionary" while the good guys either just leave or start working their butts off as everybody else. Obvi…
Working your butt off has zero to do with having a executable vision that creates value.
Clearly shit needs to get done, but there's only so many hours in the a life of a startup and being able to see what needs to be done ultimately is more important than just getting stuff done. __
"I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."
- Bill Gates
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#70In Fire Someone Today: And Other Surprising Tactics for Making Your Business a Success [1] by Bob Pritchett, cofounder of Logos Research Systems, Inc., chapter 4: There Can Be Only One—Plan for Your Partner’s Departure covers the issue of cofounders. I highly enjoyed and recommend this book. Here's an excerpt from the beginning the chapter: When I was a teenager, I toured a factory and met its owner. Dreaming of havi…
Are affiliate links allowed on HN? I thought they were banned