Hacker News Reader

Comment by mi100hael | Hacker News Reader

These threads always interest me.

Who is really willing to bring on an absolute stranger to their early-stage startup and heap a bunch of responsibility (and equity) on them? It seems a random individual from the internet would be very likely worse than no partner at all, considering you're pretty well locked together and you have no idea how that person handles conflict or pressure or really anything.

And why would one be interested in joining a random early stage startup if the existing founder can't recruit a cofounder from their network? Doesn't that tell you something right there?

View on HN

I think you can definitely gel with a stranger, but you have to know how to date. Tinder works because we know how to date. There's no protocol to founder dating...so I made one up: https://github.com/rickyyean/founder-dating-ritual

This is pretty smart. Well done. Has anyone followed this that you know of?

I just introduced it at a founder dating event I organized. Try it out and let me know how it goes!

>.. if the existing founder can't recruit a cofounder from their network?

For immigrants like me, who didn't grow up in the US, the "existing network" is largely absent / non-existent. So we always have difficulty trying to find co-founders as the people you can trust the most in your network are your "butt buddies" (in hindi we call them Chaddi-dost) and they are not here.

And most engineers, esp. technical engineers are introverts and do not like going to networking events.

> And most engineers, esp. technical engineers are introverts and do not like going to networking events.

Not every engineer is an introvert, and cofounders need to wear multiple hats, so you're better getting a 75% engineer who is more versatile.

There had been instances where introverts have learnt to network as they were trying to gain traction for their product or idea. Being introvert should not be a disqualifying criteria for someone from being successful

Indeed; I'm an extremely introverted person, but that's only because people don't actually want to talk business 100% of the time. If that's what we're doing, I am very much extroverted.

I agree growth is possible, and I'd never "disqualify" an introvert. Perhaps a better way to put it is I'd disqualify someone unafraid to network, introvert or otherwise.

> "butt buddies" (in hindi we call them Chaddi-dost)

My Hindi is far too limited to be sure, but I don't think that translation has the same connotation at all. Just fyi!

Yea in America, "butt buddies" has a homosexual implication and sometimes used pejoratively. I would use a different term in English.

In US English, I’ve always understood it to mean guys who are attached at the hip / spend a lot of time together/ to the extent they could be mistaken as being in s romantic relationship / BFFs. I felt it’s appropriate but odd used in this example. Not bad for ESL though.

That said, just because I grew up in US and my butt buddies are here doesn’t mean they’re good cofounders. I’m regularly the only entrepreneurial person in my various friend groups.

It's incorrect translation. The correct one is "trouser friends" because they are so close they can borrow each other's shorts/trousers

Haven't heard that one. 'Blood brothers' might be close. (In case you're not familiar, it's an ironic phrase, doesn't mean that the 'brothers' are related at all, just very close: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blood%20Brot...)

Or, I suppose, 'BFF', but perhaps not even teenage girls can bring themselves to use that seriously today (I suspect it's 'so last year').

I could not have said it better. Apart from the immigrant history and technical oriented, my situation is that the Chaddi-dost/butt-buddies are not oriented the same way inregards to making a product or build a company. I feel a minor proportion of the human population happen to have that sort of relationship.

wait what. "chaddi dost" is literally, "underwear buddies," not "butt buddies." "chaddi" in some cases also generally means just shorts, not necessarily what's closest to your skin. The connotation is you and your friend knew each other from when you ran around in diapers.

I stand corrected. Agreed, Butt-buddies = Gay.

Attached at the hip is more like it. These are guys you grow up with and know their darkest secrets :)

I posted a couple of minutes ago so I can tell you why I did it.

There are INCREDIBLE talented people out there that for several reasons never start a company.

Some of those reasons could be the lack of opportunities or because they just didn't have the chance of working on something cool or with the right people.

Why would anyone join? Basically for the same reason, in our case, we are a little ahead in terms of funding and customers, but as someone said: " 'A players' like to play with 'A players'".

This raises a question about co-founder responsibility and subterfuge though. I think in terms of ability, an 'A player' can probably easily tell the level of ability of another 'A player' that works in the same domain as them, but if you're thinking of bringing on a co-founder because you can handle the technical aspects, but need a business-person, can you as a talented specialist judge how good someone is at something completely un-related? I think there is potential hubris there.

My hope would be that they can bullshit their way through running a business as well as I can bullshit my way through code and infrastructure.

(yes I am looking, I have a small product ready for customers built with the exit intention of selling the product to another company at a later time. Basically the idea was to make a small business focused infrastructure toolbox. The logging product is working. I think chat and filesharing could be real easy wins. Slyops dot net. Contact link there works.)

the general advice or best experience seem to be to team up with people that you have worked together with for a few years.

but as someone who effectively has been working alone as a freelancer for most of my adult life i simply don't have any coworkers or work friends.

and don't get me started on networking. i wasted lots of time at so called networking events, to the point that when i moved to a smaller city the lack of events felt like a relief.

therefore my only chance to find partners has been random connections.

so far the results were not good. the biggest obstacle being lack of funds.

i can't afford to work for equity only if i join someone else, and i can't afford to pay someone if they were to join me.

no choice but to keep trying

But you can afford to work for equity if it’s your own project? Mayhaps your problem is that you only see your project as valuable and are subconsciously dismissing other potential projects that could kickstart your own

no, i still have to earn money first.

most startups fail. the likelyhood that the earned equity will be enough to kickstart my own project years later is to small to be worth the risk.

if i join someone for equity, then it has to be a project that i am actually interested in enough that i'd start it on my own if i had the opportunity.

so it's not my project vs your project but it is my interests vs your interests. if our interests align, i'll join you, even for equity only.

however at the end of the day i still have to put food on the table, so if you are looking for 100% commitment, i simply can't afford that.

i was part of a startup based on that premise. it failed because noone could put in enough time, and the founder rejected the idea to finance ourselves with consulting work believing that if we did that we'd never get to work on the startup because we'd be busy building up a consulting firm.

i don't believe that's true, because somehow i manage to make a living from consulting and still have time to work on my project.

it's all about priorities.

I had a cofounder who held this same position. I offered to do all the work and funnel it into the company and even that was a bad idea because then no one technical could work on the project... even though we were talkig about funding an offshore dev team. Sometimes idiots gone be idiots

There are intervening steps between meeting someone and deciding to work long-term with them.

My cofounder and I didn't know each other at the outset we worked together for 6 months before deciding to commit full time and draw up paperwork, etc.

Having seen online dating go from distasteful niche ==> new classifieds for the desperate ==> somewhat mainstream among early adopters ==> dominating offline dating channels, I wouldn't be surprised if online cofounder dating happens somewhat similarly.

I assume people looking for co-founders aren't looking to "date" candidates for months/years and therefore delay raising/launching for a substantial period of time, so it's more like marrying someone you match with on Tinder after what can only be a cursory familiarization. Could be my own bias coloring that perception, though.

If they're looking for cofounders, their product could be at any stage, including not-even-started. Raising may not even be on the map yet, or ever. Maybe you want to find a co-founder who wants to bootstrap exclusively.

Maybe you want to find someone who's a good culture fit with you, and do a small project together. If it goes well, keep going, if not, stop there. So it really is more like dating than marrying.

Vesting equity makes this pretty harmless. 4 year vest with a 1 year cliff gives you a year of dating even if you start working together before ever meeting, which of course is the most extreme absurd example.

This would seem to imply more of an employee relationship where only the stranger can get pushed out (not the existing founder get pushed out.) A good confounder relationship should hold all founders to equal account.

>Doesn't that tell you something right there? No, and a cursory Googling quantitatively debunks this bias, though it's obviously a convenient assertion to give a VC a little more reassurance on an early investment.

But really, are we all not just 'absolute strangers', 'random individuals from the internet', with a 'random early stage startup'... until we're not?

Our incredibly finite networks only form one way—by meeting new people—which has to happen somehow. Clearly there is a mutual vetting process before agreeing to work together; and extending beyond one's current network doesn't necessarily represent a failure of one (or one's current network) to satisfy each relationship. See also Joy's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy's_law_(management)

Well, we are all strangers until we are not...but confounding with an acquaintance means I’ve had a chance to get the person before working with them ( like hiring via referrals rather than hiring blind.)

Speaking personally I'd happily connect with a random stranger. Sometimes you don't have the right networks owing to geography and/or past career and/or having worked remotely for the better part of your life. And if you know how to interview (which most techies do not) then you mostly know how to weed out the wrong type of person.

I met some wonderful people this way, sometimes you just have to be open-minded and not pessimistic. Most of my moments where I met people who changed my life were complete strangers during random circumstances.

Because networks are limited and the trust placed in them misleading.

A random person with the right skillset could create a wonderful parnership not possible unless you have a big network.

For this very reason sometime back I created a slack group(https://tinyurl.com/tefogroup) for technical founders and aspiring technical founders to meetup online, try some projects together, get to know each other and seek advice from other experienced founders before actually doing a startup. It helps in the long run if the relationship is built organically.

Generally there is an interview process and a vesting schedule. If not, sign me up to co-found all the startups!

Plenty of talented people out there who just dont have the network or know the right person. Lots to do with interests too.

I agree with first part.

But what does it explain if founder has a small network or is unlucky that good candidates are currently busy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com