Good cofounder > solo > bad cofounder. Pretty simple.
If only you didn’t have to worry about good cofounders turning into bad cofounders.
You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#42The idea is that startups are very hard work and you need someone to bounce your ideas off, do some heavy lifting, who is also completely supportive of your success. Someone who pulls you back up when you hit the floor hard. My theory has often been that many "solo founders" actually get some very strong support elsewhere - whether it's their spouse or a relative. A lot of the more modern VC companies target very you…
They absolutely do get strong support elsewhere. I would argue even teams of co-founders require a diverse support network! Relying on only your team is putting all of your eggs in one basket and superficially restricting the diversity of views you need to be innovative.
Most of the time there are some very serious issues that only the management team can understand or discuss. For example a risky stealth pivot, or having to fire the CTO who has been there since the start. Or a major glitch that may lose all their customers if anyone found out.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#43You need capital. Everything else is far less critical.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#44A lot of companies will start with a prototype by one person who raises a seed round and then takes on a “co-founder.” If you’re a one person operation and you’ve managed to raise money, you need to hire someone anyway, so you may as well find someone who fits the bill of cofounder.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#45You need capital. Everything else is far less critical.
Actually if you have a solid amount of spare time, capital might not what you need. Capital is a means to create time, though.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#46Instead of looking at the proportion of exited companies compared to all founder buckets , a better statistical approach would be to look at the proportion of successful exits within each bucket to see if to see if a founder bucket has a better "chance" of success. You can kinda extrapolate the ratio of successful startups / total startups for each founder buckets by looking at the y-axis counts...but in that case, t…
Not just that. Defining a successful startup as a startup that exited is a bit narrow of a definition. A bootstrapped startup that has sustainable growth and can remain independent is successful in my book.
I think a startup you bootstrap to generate a steady stream of revenue is just called a 'business,' or 'small business.' The all-or-nothing drive is, afaik, what makes it a 'startup.'
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#47Isn't the #1 reason for startup failure disagreement between cofounders? Although solo-founder companies are harder to build (in the beginning), there is a power structure that makes taking decision easier, and reduces the odds of long-lasting conflicts.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#48Good cofounder > solo > bad cofounder. Pretty simple.
You put it nicely. Also, working closely with someone makes the process more enjoyable. People often forget that startups are really long journeys and if you're not having a good time for the most part, then it's not really worth it. And I'm not saying that solo founders never enjoy the process, it's just different. Having close people to share the journey with is important. True for life in general.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#49Instead of looking at the proportion of exited companies compared to all founder buckets , a better statistical approach would be to look at the proportion of successful exits within each bucket to see if to see if a founder bucket has a better "chance" of success. You can kinda extrapolate the ratio of successful startups / total startups for each founder buckets by looking at the y-axis counts...but in that case, t…
To put it differently: The analysis in the article doesn't normalize for the frequency of a certain founder-number bucket. What if 99% of all start-ups have single founders? Then of course most of the companies that exit have a single founder, even if single founders perform much worse.
Yes, but the article doesn't claim that you're more likely to succeed as a solo founder. It just states that success is possible.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#50A lot of companies will start with a prototype by one person who raises a seed round and then takes on a “co-founder.” If you’re a one person operation and you’ve managed to raise money, you need to hire someone anyway, so you may as well find someone who fits the bill of cofounder.
Might as well give them 50% stake in a company you built and might as well dilute your ownership? That makes no sense if you can hire someone to do the job, pay them X% more, and keep 100% ownership of your startup.
I think the reason YC and other incubators want cofounders is because it hedges their risk. If one founder gets sick or goes against YC's advice they can apply pressure through the other founder, and in extreme cases team up with other investors to oust the bad founder. If it's a solo founder they own too much of the company to divide and conquer so they can't make any power plays. I'm not saying that these moves are always bad - in general investors want the company to succeed. They just rather have an option than to put all their eggs in one basket with a solo founder.