Hacker News Reader

Comment by r0h1n | Hacker News Reader

Let's say you don't have an ideal co-founder - one who complements your skills and whom you trust implicitly and deeply (like how it's described in this nice Venturehacks piece - http://venturehacks.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/...).

Does it then make sense to bring on board a sub-optimal co-founder, one whose skill sets may be similar to yours, and who may not share that close a friendship or history with you, and whom you cannot blindly trust?

View on HN

This has been a long standing problem of my own. I think finding a true co-founder if you don't already have someone immediately present in your pool is extraordinarily difficult. The sub-optimal thing is especially difficult if you've already started (I'm 8 months in myself), and then it doesn't make sense to divide equity equally any more either, so you effectively end up with a "first employee" rather than a true co-founder.

I don't have an obvious solution to this problem. Looks like pushing forward alone (w/ a few odd employees) is the most likely option.

Also, it's not immediately clear to me that I would have been better off with a co-founder. There are so many value and design decisions to make early on that need to be established, and being able to make those fairly quickly and push forward with the bulk of the effort (first development, now sales) I think was a good position to be in.

That said, it is considerably easier to get in a funk as a single founder working longer hours than anyone else, constantly pushing forward without any discernible support. Having a girlfriend helped me with part of this for awhile -- although I had somewhat minimized working hours because of her, I also avoided any major "slump" periods.

Also, tracking all progress (lines of code written, tickets closed, commits, user adoption) has been great since I have weekly metrics that I'm always seeking to achieve. I think that's been the best way to keep me focused, and also to direct my focus at the most important goal at any given moment.

Also I still have lots of equity to give away -- if anyone reading this wants any, please let me know ;)

I have a suspicion that with the rise of YC, at least for a time, there were people searching for a cargo cult co founder. Not someone who meets all the requirements you describe, but a co-founder for the sake of having one because PG said so.

This is a bit true for me. I expended a lot of effort looking for a co-founder, even though it was not obviously true that a co-founder would help me with the particular project I was in. To a certain extent, it was Mark Suster's insistence that a co-founder is not necessary and you can just "go it alone" if you have the cojones/stamina that made me say f' it, I'm just going to do it on my own.

Actually, the breaking point was when the "co-founder" I found told me on the day after I arrived in Berlin to work on the project full time that he wouldn't be able to join in. In this case, he had a totally legit reason (his wife was in the hospital with cancer), but it was probably the case that aligning things as far as a "co-founder" was never necessary from the beginning. Either way, it was a bit catastrophic mentally for me for a couple weeks, toying with merging with a different startup in the same space instead of going full stop ahead on my own. Even now loneliness sometimes takes its toll.

Thankfully, in the end I spent a lot more time on product than worrying about finding a new co-founder, and we have a pretty d* good product now and 30% growth across our KPIs for the last two months. Not really a lot of cash in the bank account, but hell, this is Europe and investors like to sit on their money instead of invest it.

I think that sort of personality type wouldn't do well in YC selection process anyway. They are unlikely to have many interesting hack stories if they are the sort of person trying to conform. I would guess that such fake co-founders would be spotted and questioned pretty quickly and that this would be a mark against acceptance.

But its still a good idea to encourage founders to have a co-founder. They may not listen, but it might be the extra nudge they need.

This is exactly where I'm at right now. Though you're 6 months ahead of me, our experiences sound identical. I'm able to move very quickly and make decisions on the fly (user today after I pushed an update: "Wow, so fast! Do you ever sleep?"), which has been extremely beneficial thus far.

> That said, it is considerably easier to get in a funk as a single founder working longer hours than anyone else, constantly pushing forward without any discernible support.

Yes. Interestingly enough, I've found that when I get in a 'coding funk', switching to sales mode is a nice way to 'unfunk'. Instead of writing code, I write emails, reach out to existing users, and foster relationships with potential future users. Not only is it nice to interact with people, it is just as important as writing code and something that has to be done at some point. So why not do it while taking a break from coding?

Good points. I tend to do a poor job at context switching. Once I get in a coding mood I become extraordinarily anti-social and vice versa. Also, frankly, I'm not that great at sales, at least compared to watching friends of mine who are professionals. But yeah, I'm going to try this anyways.

Another aspect of context switching is that its a time killer. With a co-founder who you trust to do as good a job as you would yourself, you can separate your roles in the company and reduce the context switching required by each of you.

If you do invite somebody to join then vest the shares to them over 4 years. This minimizes issues of trust or things not working out.

No. Sure, being a single founder challenges everything about you. Likewise, being a cofounder challenges everything about that relationship. I think it's better to 'settle' for finding success outside of YC, etc. than to settle on a cofounder, especially without history. I think being a cofounder tests a relationship and your compatibility even more than marriage at times. Don't do it just to check a box on someone else's list.

Plus, confounding a company together is hard, being a single founder is harder, but I think bringing a second founder in later is the hardest maneuver of them all.

You will resent the decisions he makes concerning your baby without your history in the project. He will resent the lack of immediate trust and freedom.

I don't say this to discourage having a cofounder that you think is a perfect fit. That would be my #1 choice of course. But being a single founder is worlds preferable to having a cofounder setup that goes sour.

I agree, I'm a very compatible person, but there is nobody I know that is similarly skilled and interested in starting up an idea. I have a lot of long-time business contacts (from freelancing) who sometimes have very great ideas and even data to back-up the potential success of it, when they know a competitor for example. They want me to do it all the software-architecture, coding and sometimes even the design, but cannot invest themselves into it, except for connecting us to the potential customers they know. I once had a co-founder who at least did the business part of thing (man he was really good at it), but he stopped when it started to become fruitful, due to severe illness of his mother. Well and we never made things on paper, which concerned me, but not him.

I've one friend who I could do co-found with, but he wants to move to another country and work for an infosec company and won't have any spare time then, nor has the risk-taking ability that's required. Well, because otherwise he'd stay from start to finish of the product and not hunt down his the career-path as fast as possible.

> Does it then make sense to bring on board a sub-optimal co-founder, one whose skill sets may be similar to yours, and who may not share that close a friendship or history with you, and whom you cannot blindly trust?

This is very true. It is really difficult to find someone with all those qualities and also be as passionate as you are on that idea or gets the true vision. I feel it would be best to not rush into getting a co-founder for VCs / incubators' sake but to just keep a door open for when you do find someone. Till then, do not stop or doubt.

Would you want to invest in someone who will wait indefinitely to find the ideal teammate while [s]he actually needs to hire sub-optimal people in order to grow the company?

It's okay to postpone starting a startup, but if you want to say that you're started and get funded, then you have to show that you won't even consider a possibility of postponing growth for reasons you can avoid.

There's a world of difference between a hire and a co-founder. Being concerned about character and honesty is very, very legitimate in a startup scene with a ton of sociopathic reptiles and fast-talking flakes floating around.

Would a team of 3 co-founders be treated differently than a single founder with 2 employees?

These scenarios are comparable both on 'ability to build stuff faster than 1 person' and 'demonstrated ability to build a team' scales.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com