I always suspected that all these arbitrary investors rules were garbage. Probably what happened is that a couple of big prominent VC firms used the two-founder-only strategy and then their fund happened to succeed and they decided to attribute their success to that strategy... Whereas in fact their success was based on other factors that the VC firms did not actually understand.
You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#12I thought YC said #1 failure reason for startups was cofounder conflict?
Unknown source.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#13This screams survivorship bias so loud it hurts my ears.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#14Sure, the majority of companies that have exited had only one founder, but >70% of founders who have exited have had cofounder(s).
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#15So... whats the point if you do not consider how many solo founders there were at the begining?
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#16Whats thr point without looking at how many solo founders went in. Perhaps there are vastly more solo founders trying.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#17Suitable with me. But it's hard to seek seeds funds. Now I bootstrap my own company
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#18The 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 young entrepreneurs in their 20s, who probably have not gotten married yet.
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#19Sure, the majority of companies that have exited had only one founder, but >70% of founders who have exited have had cofounder(s).
isn't that intrinsic to companies with multiple founders?
For example:
you have a pool of 10 companies
6 of them exit
3 of the companies who exited had 2 founders each
3 of the companies who exited had one founder
in this world:
66% of founders who have exited, have had cofounders
now:
if you are a person who is founding a company, does bringing on a cofounder increase your chance of exiting in this world?
Re: You don’t actually need a co-founder (2016)
#20Basic lesson of statistics: If you have one roll of the die statistics don't matter.
Seriously, the individual context of your situation weighs much much higher. I would only use advise in situations where I have zero ideas what to do next, and then only to start brainstorming.
Sometimes you have to do things that might even seem weird to other people. But always remember that other people are there to achieve their own goals, not yours. Even your parents might have goals that are competing with yours. E.g. they want you to be financially save because if you're not then they might need to take care of you again.