Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder • Hacker News Board

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#141

Post by 20yrs_no_equity » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

api wrote: post #109

sportanova wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "just a warm body, any warm body!" mentality is what's so detrimental about the co-founder craze. Both financially (~50% of equity!) and in terms of more risk. It's a bad idea unless they're at least as talented and motivated as you (preferably in an area that complements you), and even then it's dangerous because you give up a lot of control. If it's your idea and your vision, why not build the prototype, get so…

Are there perhaps political reasons for it? Do investors prefer having two or more founders they can divide if necessary? Does it increase "bus factor" or otherwise derisk the venture? My opinion: two or more founders who are really invested and work well together > single founder > forced cofounder relationship. I say this as a single founder. The hardest thing about being a single founder is cognitive load. I don't…

There are absolutely political reasons for it. Both the dividing founders reason you mentioned, plus the fact that single founders are more likely to be technical while when two people found one of them is likely to be a business founder. VCs feel they can control the business founder (or replace him if needed) much easier than the engineer, because VCs are not engineers. (and they are not entrepreneurs in my experience either, though they seem to think they are and are happy to trot out the "exits" they were vaguely involved in, usually via friends and family equity.)

I agree with your priority- a pair of fully dedicated good founders is ideal.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#142

Post by 20yrs_no_equity » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

sportanova wrote: post #90

20yrs_no_equity wrote: post #55

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…

The "just a warm body, any warm body!" mentality is what's so detrimental about the co-founder craze. Both financially (~50% of equity!) and in terms of more risk. It's a bad idea unless they're at least as talented and motivated as you (preferably in an area that complements you), and even then it's dangerous because you give up a lot of control. If it's your idea and your vision, why not build the prototype, get so…

I don't think its preferable to find a cofounder in an area that complements you. I think that this can be great, but what's most preferable is the right co-founder relationship. If the right co-founder is also an engineer, then that's fine. One of you should be CEO anyway, you can always hire business guys.

I think the classic mistake startups make is the duo where ones "business" and ones "technical" and the engineer ends up spending all this time building the product and the business while the business guy takes the CEO spot and controls something he doesn't understand. (assuming it's a technical business, if it's a non-technical business like a sport drink then a business guy for CEO makes sense, as sales are step key operational effort)

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#143

Post by tdfx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #117

nxzero wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…

I believe the reason you're getting downvoted is because of the casual way you reel off how easy it is to found a successful company that you can do it casually, sort of disinterestedly tossing it out of your one limp hand to your co-founding pleb who eagerly grasps at the crumbs of your genius. In other words, you come off as an arrogant know-it-all.

You, sir, have a way with words.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#144

Post by chrisabrams » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

freddealmeida wrote: post #103

I resigned from the company I started with two other co-founders. Building a new firm now as a single founder. I expect many things will be harder though few will be insurmountable if at any at all. Building my first company, to the second largest deep learning firm in Tokyo was exciting. But if I had to break down my time so much was wasted driving consensus where none was really required. I know most investors hate…

Traction does solve all the problems. This is known.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#145

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

Amygaz wrote: post #135

rdtsc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my heuristic -- those who call themselves "visionaries", "architects" or "coding ninjas" are usually those you have to stay away from.

I agree with you. And I also have a tendency, based on a few personal experiences, to associate self-proclaimed visionaries, with narcissistic personality disorder. And it is also my experience that, besides being very active in taking credits for other people ideas, design and work, they are typically lazy and a hindrance. However, somehow, they're alway seems to be able to find people who will do the job for them,…

There is definitely such a thing as 'architecture' role in software.

Usually they have a lot of experience, and work on larger teams where such things are necessary.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#146

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC

kordless wrote: post #139

rsp1984 wrote: post #43

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…

> Most people just prefer slacking off to working their butts off. Representing the individual desire to work for "most people" isn't your job or your right any more than it's my right to say your internal view of the world is totally fucked up if you think that way. It's all well and fine to mention there are sociopaths in the industry, but colluding them with narcissists is unreasonable. Narcissism is simply the ab…

I think it's safe to say most people would rather slack off than work extremely hard.

Sometimes, rarely, people have a strong sense of purpose, or a very high level of professionalism.

But 95% of people, if they could chose to take a big salary - AND - chill and not do much, probably would.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#147

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 11:01 PM UTC

nxzero wrote: post #69

rsp1984 wrote: post #43

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

"Working your butt off has zero to do with having a executable vision that creates value."

Except that 'working your butt of has everything to do with actually executing that vision'

Google, FB, Apple, MS - founders 100% of these companies worked really, really hard to get there.

Bill Gates was notorious for pushing his people to extremes.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#148

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 11:02 PM UTC

brahmwg wrote: post #91

nxzero wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I get what you're saying, and i think the whole "you gotta work your butt off to be successful" thing is a lingering noting from workoholic culture. "How many hours you put in?" is the corporate version of "how much can you lift?" And I believe it's not exactly right; working smarter is better than just working harder. But both do entail work. Then again, isn't there some quote about inspiration and perspiration ;)

"you gotta work your butt off to be successful" thing is a lingering noting from workaholic culture. "

Completely false.

There are very, very few startups that are successful wherein the founders are not putting in crazy hours.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#149

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

axlprose wrote: post #84

k__ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who actively works researching personality psychology, I can fully attest to this. 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.

'Not knowing what someone else is thinking' - is completely different from 'knowing human nature'.

For example, people tend to be a little lazy, or tend towards 'doing less'. If one could get 100K for sitting on one's butt - most people would take the offer. Some people would rather work, or do something more creative.

This is different from being able to 'read' people.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#150

Post by marknadal » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

I am a solo founder as well, and can attest to this fact. I raised from billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce for an Open Source database http://gun.js.org/ (like Firebase).

Been trying to write up a blog post on my experience over the last 2 years, and will hopefully post it. Hit me up if anybody has any questions though.