Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#2From Forbes to Hacker News back to Forbes back to Hacker News.
Definition of an echo chamber. In case a Forbes reporter wants to quote me, this comment is not for attribution.
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#3I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary.
I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#4I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.
Secondary founders work for less pay than anyone else in exchange for large chunks of equity which can be a huge asset for a tiny company. Add in the validation of being able to convince someone else that you have a good enough idea to take such helps convince VC's that the idea has merit. Having someone else committed also means you have someone to bounce ideas off of at 7:30pm that knows the issues and can give new incite is huge. Finally, it reduces your buss factor where is someone get's sick the company can still operate.
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#5I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.
" I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. "
Simply knowing that it increases the chances that the startup will succeed should be sufficient to understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. True, it's not required 100% of the time, but, a-priori, how can anyone know whether this is one of those times. There are a hundred well defined things that can contribute to the failure of a startup (in addition to the thousand less well defined things) - one thing that YC brings to the table is identifying that list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided. Coming in with at least one cofounder brings the list to 99. Incorporating in Delaware to 98. Having someone who can code 97. etc, etc, etc...
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#6"Dropbox being the biggest home run YC has had to date"
That's still Heroku in my book
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#7"Dropbox being the biggest home run YC has had to date" That's still Heroku in my book
Interesting... Are you measuring by the number of users or revenue?
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#8What if Arash had turned out to be a bad match? They didn't know each other, so it was a pretty big gamble.
I suppose if Drew retained control he could prevent it destroying the company, but then he doesn't really have an equal co-founder to keep him in check.
Seems like a really tough problem. Kind of amazing it worked out so well.
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#9I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.
" I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. " Simply knowing that it increases the chances that the startup will succeed should be sufficient to understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. True, it's not required 100% of the time, but, a-priori, how can anyone know whether this is one of those times. There are a hundred well defined things that…
Is there really a YC list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided ? Very interested to know
Re: Paul Graham, Dropbox and The Single Founder Exception
#10I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.
Startups are just so much work. You need some help.
For example, if you have two founders, then one can go out and do fundraising for a month while the other keeps the company running. If you had only one founder, you'd be dead in the water for that month. (Even if you have employees -- things are going to decay if all of the founders are distracted.)
Also, I've never known YC to play founders against each other.