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

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by Silhouette »

tdb7893 wrote: post #94
rsp1984 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem I find (and one I've seen in a lot of cofounder groups) is that most of the people who want to start startups are visionaries. It's simpler than that. Most people just prefer slacking off to working their butts off. However it's the narcissists and sociopaths that will call their slacking off being "visionary" while the good guys either just leave or start working their butts off as everybody else. Obvi…

I'm not sure I would go that far but I have always had very mediocre experiences with people who describe themselves as "visionary"

I don't know about the word "visionary" or using it as some sort of self-descriptive label, but I do think it's important for the founders investing their time and effort into a startup to have a vision for what they're really trying to achieve and to dream big. That's obviously not sufficient for success, but I suspect that to some extent it is necessary, given the commitment that tends to be needed from founders and perhaps early employees and how difficult it can be to ride out the rough patches without some sort of goal you believe will be worth it in the end.

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

#122

Post by api »

chenster wrote: post #86
Etheryte wrote: post #61

The data shows that solo founders have no problem securing investment, yet the author concludes exactly the opposite.

However, based on my experience, VCs do prefer startup with at least two co-founders in case one is, unlikely but possible, deceased.

I've heard of startups, even those with more than one founder, taking out key person insurance for the company to mitigate this.

It's basically a life and disability insurance policy on the founder(s).

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

#123

Post by vonnik »

I don't think the article proves the point it claims to make (you don't need a founder), or disproves the message from YC: having a co-founder increases the likelihood that your startup will survive.

First of all, most startups fail when they are least funded, before they ever get past friends and family money. When you have close to zero money, mountains of work, and no traction or social proof, there's only one way to convince someone to do the important stuff that you can't do yourself, and that's by giving them a lot of equity. Founders: People satisfied with paper and an idea. (If you're already wealthy, sure, you can hire all the help you need. But that's not most people or most startups.)

The advice YC gives to co-found a startup with someone you can depend on addresses several early-stage startup problems: 1) Most people have severe limits to what they can do. Those limits come in terms of time and talent. Maybe they can code but they can't handle logistics or paperwork. Maybe they can sell an idea to investors and customers, but they can't build software. Startups require much more than one person can give. 2) Early-stage startups should be in a very active conversation with the world about what to build. The startup needs to be taking in a lot of information, reflecting on it deeply, and acting on it intelligently. With the right co-founder, you gather more information, think about it in ways you wouldn't have alone, and execute better and faster with the extra mind and hands.

To wrap this up, a brief list:

* Jobs and Wozniak

* Allen and Gates

* Page and Brin

* Hewlett and Packard

* Noyce and Moore

* Chesky, Gebbia and Blecharczyk

* Camp and Kalanick

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

#125

Post by throwaway6565 »

throwaway7312 wrote: post #9

I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…

How long ago did you start your current one?

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

#126

Post by cookiecaper »

throwaway1182 wrote: post #82
20yrs_no_equity wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You admit you have a main founder. Does this main founder have sorta ultimate authority? Or does he hold the singular original vision from which everyone else's vision/mission/purpose comes from? What's the equity split like among the 6 of you? What created that base of trust you describe? Was it everyone agreeing to follow the "main founders" vision, and him being respectful and not ego driven (so that the vision be…

> Was it everyone agreeing to follow the "main founders" vision, and him being respectful and not ego driven (so that the vision became shared?) Pretty much exactly that plus providing the seed round. In practice, this also definitely had a lot to do with things working out well to have a center piece that's stable, predictable and a little detached, quite the opposite of a show-off. Buying into a main vision and the…

What's the salary dispersion among the founders? It sounds like you've solved one of the main issues that prevents good people from leaving their stable jobs to found startups, which is providing actually meaningful equity to a base of qualified and capable people instead of hoarding it between 1-2 founders and investors, leaving only fractions of a percent for the earliest employees.

I'm curious if you also cleared the other huge hurdle: giving up 70% of individual earning power for what is essentially a lottery ticket.

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

#127

Post by telecuda »

You don't need a co-founder, but you shouldn't do it alone.

Every founder will have days where an investor or employee is driving you nuts, or worse - you're struggling to keep the business afloat. At these junctures, an outside coach (not linked to your funding so you're truly open and honest) can be a lifesaver, helping you work through the complex journey of growing a business.

-Single founder, 6 years 20+ employees

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

#128

Post by rdtsc »

tdb7893 wrote: post #94
rsp1984 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem I find (and one I've seen in a lot of cofounder groups) is that most of the people who want to start startups are visionaries. It's simpler than that. Most people just prefer slacking off to working their butts off. However it's the narcissists and sociopaths that will call their slacking off being "visionary" while the good guys either just leave or start working their butts off as everybody else. Obvi…

I'm not sure I would go that far but I have always had very mediocre experiences with people who describe themselves as "visionary"

That's my heuristic -- those who call themselves "visionaries", "architects" or "coding ninjas" are usually those you have to stay away from.

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

#129

Post by mixmastamyk »

throwaway7312 wrote: post #9

I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…

> I'd rather keep… people I know in masterminds where…

What does "in masterminds" mean here?

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

#130

Post by dhruvkar »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #129
throwaway7312 wrote: post #9

I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…

> I'd rather keep… people I know in masterminds where… What does "in masterminds" mean here?

not OP, but it (usually) refers to a small group of like minded individuals that bounce ideas off of each other.

A more proper definition: http://www.thesuccessalliance.com/what-is-a-mastermind-group...

Post reply on HN