Hacker News Reader

Comment by craze3 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. I'm starting to think that it's more of a power struggle issue- If YC can't get one founder to agree with or sign off on something, then they want to be able to approach the other founder and convince them instead.

View on HN

" I know it increases the chances that the startup will succeed, but sometimes it's unnecessary. "

Simply knowing that it increases the chances that the startup will succeed should be sufficient to understand where the fixation for multiple founders stems from. True, it's not required 100% of the time, but, a-priori, how can anyone know whether this is one of those times. There are a hundred well defined things that can contribute to the failure of a startup (in addition to the thousand less well defined things) - one thing that YC brings to the table is identifying that list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided. Coming in with at least one cofounder brings the list to 99. Incorporating in Delaware to 98. Having someone who can code 97. etc, etc, etc...

Is there really a YC list of 100 things that can kill a startup so they can be avoided ? Very interested to know

There's one of 18: http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

Any updates to this list since Oct '06?

PG's list is just the tip. Of one of many icebergs a startup will hit. Serious.

Head to http://pmarchive.com

Startups are just so much work. You need some help.

For example, if you have two founders, then one can go out and do fundraising for a month while the other keeps the company running. If you had only one founder, you'd be dead in the water for that month. (Even if you have employees -- things are going to decay if all of the founders are distracted.)

Also, I've never known YC to play founders against each other.

Great point, I'd also add emotional support in the darkest hours.

Secondary founders work for less pay than anyone else in exchange for large chunks of equity which can be a huge asset for a tiny company. Add in the validation of being able to convince someone else that you have a good enough idea to take such helps convince VC's that the idea has merit. Having someone else committed also means you have someone to bounce ideas off of at 7:30pm that knows the issues and can give new incite is huge. Finally, it reduces your buss factor where is someone get's sick the company can still operate.

Probably YC's way of saying, target this niche of single-founders because they are too mainstream. If you can handle investing in single-founders, you can rival YC I suppose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com