Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

Post by WorldMaker » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:34 PM UTC

sacnoradhq wrote: post #11

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…

The spouse analogy works on several levels because "divorces" with cofounders can also be equally messy for everyone involved.

Post by jjk166 » Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

bradhe wrote: post #10

> Don was a brass tacks semiconductor sales guy who founded Sequoia Capital in 1972 with the novel idea of investing in markets, not founders. He could care less about the number of founders in a startup. Half the time, he’d replace them. Thought this was a weird characterization. If he’s willing to go so far to put specific people in charge of companies, seems like the leaders of the business are very important to h…

The leaders are important, but the founders don't need to be the leaders, so that importance does not transfer over. Likewise you don't want to live in a house painted an ugly color, but it's safe to buy a house painted an ugly color because it's an easy fix.

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement

Re: Cofounders Are a Dumb Requirement