I have wondered why Paul Graham is so adamant that having cofounders are better than single founder, when cofounders seem to be a key reason for startup failure.
I would have thought that the preferred option would be single founders.
I would have thought that the preferred option would be single founders.
(Note also that institutional stakeholders would usually rather have a SPOF that they can identify and intervene in, rather than a bunch of little failure points that might sneak up on you and are very difficult to stave off. This may or may not be in the interests of the individual founder, who often has an information advantage and better mitigation strategies for identifying and counteracting these other failure points.)
The value of a co-founder is that they can cover for some of your problems. But likewise, a co-founder can also introduce problems, and if their problems interact with your problems, then the relationship turns sour and you suffer a divorce, which can be its own problem, and tear the company apart.
A key route to failure is making excuses. A bunch of people who failed telling you it's their cofounder's fault shouldn't be too big of a surprise.
Even if both founders agree it was Founder B's fault, that doesn't mean its true. It really depends on the personalities of the people involved. People take blame for things that are someone else's fault all the time. Especially if the other person is good at projecting or deflecting.