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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

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

#101

Post by nxzero »

leesalminen wrote: post #98
nxzero wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. I've literally run a startup where I took an opportunity I saw, pitched it to a cofounder, got a single client, cofounder did all the work. After year, cofounder was tried of doing work, so I told them how to turn the service into a product and rapidly got five clients; after that, the cofounder didn't have to do anymore work either. I'm not lazy, happy to do hard work, but if I see an exploitable situation…

Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?

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 major effort from either of us.

EDIT: Truly curious as to the reasoning behind the downvotes and would welcome a comment expressing someone's thoughts on why this comment has received 3+ downvotes.

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

#102

Post by nxzero »

amorphid wrote: post #78
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 do not agree. A person who doesn't work their butt off usually lacks any sort of meaningful perspective derived from hard work.

"A shortcut is not shortcut, unless you know the way." - nxzero

Finding shortcuts does not require hard work, but a willingness to be different and take risks others will not.

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

#103

Post by freddealmeida »

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 a single founder. Traction though solves all problems.

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

#104

Post by brianwawok »

jeremyjh wrote: post #74
brianwawok wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the goal to get funded is the goal to succeed? Success is the metric you want to measure, which is usually exit if not profitability.

It doesn't matter which success metric is used, the point still stands. If you only measure the ratio of solo-founder companies that are successful, you haven't measured anything at all about how likely a solo-founder company is to succeed. We need to know how many of each type failed as well.

Yes and no.

This is not scientifically sound without the full data, you are right. But I don't think that is the point. If you had all the data and parsed it.. and it told you that as a solo founder you had a 21% chance to exit, and as a group founder you had a 23% chance to exit.. so should you do a group founding as your next project despite not knowing anyone to found with?

I don't think it works like that. Some people naturally do better solo. Some people already have a group on a hot idea. I think you should go with what is working. What the point of this story is, in my mind, is to say "look - a lot of articles say solo founders are bad. Here is some data that it isn't that bad, and perhaps solo founding is a valid way to run a business"

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

#105

Post by amorphid »

nxzero wrote: post #102
amorphid wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree. A person who doesn't work their butt off usually lacks any sort of meaningful perspective derived from hard work.

"A shortcut is not shortcut, unless you know the way." - nxzero Finding shortcuts does not require hard work, but a willingness to be different and take risks others will not.

"Someone else already knows the trade secret for the problem I'm trying to solve, but they won't tell me the solution, because I don't have lots of money. Even if they did tell me, I probably wouldn't understand it, because I lack the perspective of experience." -amorphid

"I have no idea in which direction I need to go, so I'm gonna have to work my butt off to find the right path." -amorphid

"I worked really hard, and found a solution!" -amorphid

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

#106

Post by sportanova »

morgante wrote: post #95
sportanova wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then again how many of these companies with cofounders, really only had cofounders-in-name-only? Where one person really drove everything but at some point thought - oh shit, if I'm going to be successful, I need a cofounder! Given the dogmatic advice "YOU NEED A COFOUNDER", I'm sure a lot of it's title inflation - what would normally be first employees are elevated to founder status to look good for the pitch de…

That doesn't really disprove the point though. Probably the vast majority of startups have a dominant cofounder. You might call them cofounders-in-name-only, but that still validates the notion that you're better off finding a cofounder (even if they're not as central).

Yeah it's just another perspective

I don't think it validates it - if their not as central why not make them an employee with less equity / control

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

#107

Post by gregpilling »

sandebert wrote: post #71
bambax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you; I had never heard the term mastermind in that context before. Is it a well-known concept? The second result when googling "startup mastermind" is the post you mention, and the first one is... a reddit thread pointing to that same post. But the idea is exactly what I would need, so thanks!!

Glad to help. I've been in one for about a year or so, and can't recommend it enough. Not sure how known the concept is, but I think it is fairly well known, especially if you run a bootstrapped startup. And if you're listening to the podcast Startups For the Rest Of Us (recommended!), I'd say it's probably close to 100 percent. One way of finding people for your mastermind is to visit the MicroConf conference, run b…

The mastermind concept is laid out in "Think and Grow Rich" which was published in the 1930s

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

#109

Post by api »

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…

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 necessarily mean time. There are usually enough hours, but switching between at least five hats really strains the brain. It can also be hard to maintain energy. I find groups with other founders and working in a good startup oriented coworking space very helpful.

Post reply on HN