Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesque | Hacker News Reader

Not sure what the reader is supposed to get from this. I'm sure the situation was stressful beyond imagination. But the entire piece just seems overwhelmingly bitter. What can any external party really gain from this account? People fail to cooperate all over the world every day and it can be hard to understand from the outside what the root cause is or even if there is one. Perhaps this article was a useful exercise to the author, but I imagine it might have served better if it was kept private.

View on HN

I got several things out of it...

- Vet your potential co-founder more closely to make sure they have the skillsets they claim to

- Pay attention to red flags and deal with them sooner. Withholding the admin password, for example, was a clear one.

- Maybe build in a non-confrontational exit from the beginning. Sounds like the co-founder was trying to bullshit their way through it so they wouldn't lose out if the product did well. Perhaps a small amount of equity would have been an easier way to push them out?

Agreed, and, from a comment below:

> this is one of the reasons Founder Vesting is a thing. There should be a mechanism in place which strips the founder of equity when they quit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387927

Author here. I perhaps should have kept it private, but I am tired of having to demur and gloss over the difficulties encountered of getting the product launched. A common question over the last few years from potential investors has been "what happened", so now I will just point them at the article and they can make any judgment they like. Hiding it and glossing over it has been counter productive so far, so I'm trying something different.

I should probably know better than to moralize at people over the internet, but I feel somewhat obligated to give you my own honest opinion about this. And that is that if I were a prospective investor, I would regard this article as a red flag. It's not that you apparently ended up with someone who was a flake. That could happen to anyone. It's that you saw fit to publish and advertise a rant about them in which you chose to refer to them with demeaning language like "worthless chump" and "knobgoblin". That seems to indicate that you've taken on a level of resentment and emotional burden that may eventually cloud your judgement in other situations. I don't think it would establish the characteristic of maturity that an investor would want to see in a founder.

I would urge you not to refer investors to this article and instead just try to explain in simple terms that you felt your co-founder did not respect the timelines that were critical for your company. And list the facts, not your opinions.

Update: By the way, I'd like to add that it's clear you had a rough ride with this one and I don't feel unsympathetic. But I wouldn't want you to struggle with it any longer than is necessary. Best of luck.

Likewise as an investor or prospective employee I would look at this and quite easily be turned away. Here is someone who doesn’t have the register of a leader, and whatever red flags people willingly broadcast, the obvious signs are often only the tip of the iceberg.

I appreciate the feedback, and I do realise this will come across as a potential issue, but hiding things is just as bad. For reference, what's also seen as a red flag by investors is disclosing this after they have engaged, "keeping it private" is seen as deceptive. The company survives on revenue anyway.

I wouldn't say keeping it private and that article are your only choices. You should absolutely disclose that you had a cofounder who didn't work out because he turned out to be incompetent. Hiring a cofounder is tough and people make mistake all the time, they've seen that before.

But sharing that specific article is a mistake, instead just stating it without emotion is probably better.

I know it's tough, I was in a similar position with a cofounder who really didn't work out and I really resonate with that line "I do miss that naive me though, there is something wonderful in trusting your fellow man that I can never quite regain, which is a shame.". My experience also made me lose that bright sunshine of naivety and easy trust that I had and for a long time I was incredibly bitter about my ex cofounder. But, it's not a good strategy to be publish it with a wording this emotional, instead just being very matter of fact about it, describing the main issues in broad terms is enough.

I'm happy you had your catharsis, smackeyacky. Mental health is important, and seeing yourself reject bad behavior, as well as sharing your emotions with your peers, are both excellent ways to feel better.

If you need to share your anger with the world, this quality essentially has nothing to do with your former partner, but has everything to do with your future partners' perception of your coping strategies. The red flag is that you may spend unnecessary energy holding on to things.

The mark of responsibility is sucking up and admitting that it was 100% your mistake, and that he was just a particularly tall rock you had to climb.

To quote a musician, scream it to the trees. (Ventilate to those for whom it has zero cost; your spouse, your friends; not all potential future partners.)

The explanation can be shared with potential investors in private if needed, as part of due diligence. There's no essential need in the piece being public.

The author claims to be the victim but his writing reeks of someone you wouldn't want to share an office with (to put it mildly).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com