81–90 of 172 posts
A cofounder is very helpful in pointing out your blind spots. Also the journey is just way more fun with a partner you like and respect.
Here's the key. I'm sole-founding my current startup, and I know I am having less fun than if I had a cofounder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You admit you have a main founder. Does this main founder have sorta ultimate authority? Or does he hold the singular original vision from which everyone else's vision/mission/purpose comes from? What's the equity split like among the 6 of you? What created that base of trust you describe? Was it everyone agreeing to follow the "main founders" vision, and him being respectful and not ego driven (so that the vision be…
Pretty much exactly that plus providing the seed round. In practice, this also definitely had a lot to do with things working out well to have a center piece that's stable, predictable and a little detached, quite the opposite of a show-off. Buying into a main vision and then transferring it into a vision for tech, marketing, sales, product and operations was much easier that way.
Equity split was 50:others by the way.
Now you might argue this isn't a "real" as in "more equal" cofounder dynamic, but giving away 50% of your company before even starting and then treating those people as equals made a lot of difference, including an enormous buy-in at all key builders of the company. After having experienced how well it played out, I'd do it the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
The thing is that vision is just so much easier than actually doing the grinding grunt work.
"Vision without execution is hallucination"
- Thomas Edison
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There actually seems to be somewhat of a Dunning-Kruger like effect when it comes to people evaluation skills. Generally, those who appear the most confident about their people judgements, also seem to be those who are wildly speculative and inaccurate about what other people are thinking.
The data shows that solo founders have no problem securing investment, yet the author concludes exactly the opposite.
I'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…
My suspicion is without the previous cofounded failed startups, unlikely you would have the success later in the game because then you know what you are doing and making up the other half by experience. Can't imagine the success rate of a first-time solofounder who makes to the other side. It's not impossible, but probably very difficult.
If anything, this analysis under-represents the success of solo founders. Because VCs don't like solo founders, it's less likely they go for a VC path. There must be plenty of successes that are bootstrapped. And these solo founders may not even bother adding their company to Crunchbase. I'm one of those.
After decades as an employee and cofounder, and seeing many startups fail first hand (so smaller data set, but much richer information) I agree that the stigma against single founders is in error. The number one and two causes of startup failure in my experience are fights between the founders and VCs forcing the startup to do the wrong thing (which often causes fights between the founders with one saying "we know th…
If it's your idea and your vision, why not build the prototype, get some traction, then bring on a talented employee for 5% equity? Much better than 50% with someone you met at a "find a tech-cofounder" event