Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

arisx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#11

Post by sacnoradhq »

jschveibinz wrote: post #4

Investors like cofounders because they don’t like betting on people who either think they can do everything or can’t work with others. Why? Because starting and running a business is really, really hard—-there are many things to do all at the same time—-and the software or other technology is only a small part of job. Solo founders are just not very likely to succeed. There is too much risk. Oh, and “finding” a cofou…

If you can find a spouse on the internet, regardless of how and where, then you can also find a friend. Some friends are cofounder material. Intentionally finding cofounders is daunting because there's little or nothing else besides the current venture to encourage their continuity of working together.

If you happen to find a good cofounder or a good spouse, then you don't keep changing them. That team is worth more than the current venture.

The problem of lacking a cofounder is lacking another pair of eyes and another brain who can help moderate wacky ideas. Everything seems like a great idea and a utopia, in isolation. But in the real world, some ideas are better than others. No one person can think of everything exhaustively and can prioritize it.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#12

Post by ozim »

rxhernandez wrote: post #5
jschveibinz wrote: post #4

Investors like cofounders because they don’t like betting on people who either think they can do everything or can’t work with others. Why? Because starting and running a business is really, really hard—-there are many things to do all at the same time—-and the software or other technology is only a small part of job. Solo founders are just not very likely to succeed. There is too much risk. Oh, and “finding” a cofou…

> Oh, and “finding” a cofounder is not something one does by searching on the Internet. Why not? I've had serious offers to co-found companies from random seatmates on bus rides between Silicon Valley and Los Angeles. Frankly, the biggest obstacle I've had is not in finding team-players (with all due respect to everyone reading this, team-players are a dime a dozen; how could any company function if the majority of p…

Good luck going into business with seatmates on bus rides.

If you co-own company and other owner goes into full "steal as much shit as possible" mode and you are left with downfall as a co-owner.

You can get into serious trouble and end up dragged through courts for years instead of building your dream company.

Then to prevent that - you start doing due diligence on "bus seatmates" - then it turns out, instead of building your dream company you are spending money/time on screening people.

In the end "finding people with drive" is also finding people that care about the same stuff as you do.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#13

Post by signaru »

Depends where you are. If startups/innovation is not the norm in your circle, then it's difficult to find someone with the same values and skills beyond the norm. But then again, VCs are likely not there either.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#15

Post by nowherebeen »

dsabanin wrote: post #14

Having a cofounder also allows investors to potentially drive a wedge in between the founders in a fight for the control of the company.

This is the side that no one talks about. No one seems to ever question it and just regurgitates the story investors tell them.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#16

Post by stinkypantsman »

dsabanin wrote: post #14

Having a cofounder also allows investors to potentially drive a wedge in between the founders in a fight for the control of the company.

If your cofounder lets you do this, you picked the wrong cofounder. In reality it's the cofounders vs. the world (including investors)

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#17

Post by DelaneyM »

This is yet another factor which drives homogeneity in venture as well.

I have lots of friends and associates who I work well with and respect, but none are "tech people.". They're teachers, nurses, retail entrepreneurs, etc. I appreciate them because they are not like me, and after always being in a small minority in my education and career they're my people who keep me grounded. None could be a co-founder.

If I had a nickel for every time a VC suggested they could "help me find a business co-founder (CEO) with tech credentials" (all of whom were white straight Stanford dudes) I'd have 15¢, which isn't much, but it's depressing that it's happened thrice.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#18

Post by dsabanin »

stinkypantsman wrote: post #16
dsabanin wrote: post #14

Having a cofounder also allows investors to potentially drive a wedge in between the founders in a fight for the control of the company.

If your cofounder lets you do this, you picked the wrong cofounder. In reality it's the cofounders vs. the world (including investors)

Absolutely, now how do you reliably determine whether someone is going to break under pressure, be tempted by money/power and ego? From my observations, given enough pressure & temptation many people can be easily manipulated in predictable ways.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#19

Post by grepLeigh »

Solo Founder here. Great article. I wish I'd been more focused on cultivating co-founder relationships over the past 5-10 years, but I'd have to time-travel and give myself that advice. I had no clue I'd wind up founding a company!

Here are some support resources that've helped me:

- Mastermind groups

- Growing a community Discord (almost 250 people)

- Volunteering to organize industry events, like Women in 3D Printing.

Recruiting is a very important skill for a VC-backed founder, so I understand why few VCs are interested in backing a solo founder.

My plan is to de-risk for institutional investors by raising a pre-seed round, 25k x 6 angels for 150k@2M. Combined with revenue, that's enough to hire a founding engineer and add another line of business to my product.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

#20

Post by dimmke »

stinkypantsman wrote: post #16
dsabanin wrote: post #14

Having a cofounder also allows investors to potentially drive a wedge in between the founders in a fight for the control of the company.

If your cofounder lets you do this, you picked the wrong cofounder. In reality it's the cofounders vs. the world (including investors)

>you picked the wrong cofounder.

Picking a cofounder can be extremely difficult. It's almost like finding a partner to marry.

You have to trust them on so many levels: - That they're putting the same amount of effort in as you are, they're as invested (tons of horror stories about this.) - That they have the compatible (maybe not exactly the same but close enough) long term vision for the company (general roadmap, how and when to take funding) - You have to figure out a division of duties that's equitable. This can be extremely challenging especially if it's a software company and one of the cofounders isn't technical.

Past early 20's it gets extremely dicey. If you're taking year(s) off your career to build this thing, and investing money into it pre-seed, you're taking a huge gamble and you're just introducing this big additional wildcard. It's not like these people who meet in college and have nothing to lose.

I recently started a company and received several offers from people I didn't know at all to be my cofounder. Just like, cold LinkedIn messages. Like, you don't even know what the premise of my company is, and you haven't suggested what you would offer.

Even with friends - it's like that saying goes. Don't become roommates with your best friend. Once a lot of money is involved, things change.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have a good cofounder, but it's extremely difficult. Building a business is already hard enough. I almost wish it more common to take on a first employee who serves as a sort of co-founder who will wear a lot of hats, and still gets a great equity grant that vests over time (like 15%) but the risk is much more mitigated.

Post reply on HN