

Having a cofounder is a blessing and a curse at the same time. - suurvarik
https://plus.google.com/115567465204640658533/posts/gn6x6Bv3WmM?hl=et

======
RossM
If you're wondering why Google+ is suddenly in Estonian(?), it's because the
submitter included ?hl=et on their link (remove it to get your normal language
- this setting follows you around the site).

------
kristenlee
I started off working on my startup as a single founder and found it
enjoyable, especially the coding part. What I underestimated was the emotional
challenge and that's where having a cofounder helps tremendously. I was
fortunate enough to find a cofounder and while the level of stress is still
high, its much easier to deal with having somebody in the trenches with you.
As far as the later stages of a startup, very few startups even get to that
point so I wouldn't worry so much.

~~~
suurvarik
I did my first startup with a cofounder. Sold it. Starting 2012 I'm a single
founder. Want the experience of doing both. For now I love it. Feels like much
more freedom.

------
nirvana
I've worked for a lot of startups and observed two primary causes of startup
death: 1. VCs forced bad decisions on the startup. 2. Founders fought,
resulting in bad decisions.

I think co-founders are an improvement over single-founder, but I think there
should be a primary founder, the leader, with whom the buck stops, and with
whom all of the co-founders are willing to defer if they don't reach
consensus. There should be a chief and indians and even if everyone starts at
the same time, the relationship should be discussed and understood in advance.

Much of the drama I've seen is inherent to the "Everyone is equal" perception.

If you're willing to be a cofounder in this environment- where you're NOT the
leader and NOT equal to the leader- then from the beginning you've agreed to
subordinate your ego to some extent to the founder, and so this should remove
the ego driven need to defend yourself on things that really aren't that
relevant which seems to be the cause of a lot of the drama.

I think PG echoed very similar sentiments in a recent interview with TC where
he said he looked for teams where there was a clear leader. This fits my
experience.

~~~
tensor
For practical reasons there needs to be someone to break ties in decisions.
However, this is different to thinking that your are somehow better than
others. In business you should check your ego at the door, _especially_ if you
are in a position where you need to be the tie breaker.

The idea of "everyone is equal" is to remind yourself to respect your
coworkers, actually consider their inputs, and remember that you too can be
just as wrong as you might think others are. The idea not "we are equal thus
if we disagree then nothing happens."

------
markessien
Not having a co-founder is worse. A short discussion with someone who
understands what you are talking about can make ideas much clearer in your
mind than days of thinking alone.

~~~
suurvarik
There are other ways to have discussions with people who understand what you
are talking about. Surronding yourself with people who share the same passion
for entrepreneurship or finding a mentor.

~~~
rexreed
I've started to come to the same conclusion. After having just bought out my
co-founder because he couldn't commit to the same extent as I have, I have
gone back to look for a new technical "co-founder". But now I'm thinking it
might just suit me better to hunker down, get stuff done and iterate the
business a few pegs. That might give me enough traction to then decide to hire
what's missing. I agree that surrounding yourself with good, responsive,
thoughtful, and challenging mentors is a suitable alternative to a co-founder,
but of course, they're not in the trenches with you, so there's no way they
could truly have the same level of stress or have the same skin-in-the-game as
you do. Maybe that's a plus, tho.

As you can see I am torn -- stay a single founder or add to the founding team?

~~~
suurvarik
How much value could a cofounder add for you.

------
tferris
It's choosing between pest and cholera.

 _In early stages:_ With a cofounder you get started, carry on, have fun and
soon an MVP. Without you quit days after having a first prototype (due to
heavy procrastination, doubts, distractions).

 _In later stages:_ With a cofounder decision-making becomes a nightmare—every
other discussion ends in dramas and in grueling deadlocks. Without a cofounder
life is a breeze and you can close deals in 48h (i.e. buying a photo sharing
app for 1 billion).

(edited first line: removed chicken and egg)

~~~
adennis4
Well, first - what you described isn't a chicken and egg problem..it doesn't
actually relate to this situation at all. Those are pros and cons of having a
co-founder.

There are a ton of reasons why a co-founder is a pain. However, the positives
far outweigh any negatives...the stage of the company doesn't matter.
Disagreements are valuable. The workload is simply unmanageable on your own.
The road to success / failure can get really lonely without a co-founder.

Building a successful company is unlikely. Building one without a co-
founder...odds just got worse.

~~~
mkramlich
> The workload is simply unmanageable on your own.

Disagree. You have the power to choose what the workload is as a sole
founder/bootstrap. You choose the feature set. You choose what's in the next
iteration. You choose how fast or slow to go. You choose your cash burn, if
any. You choose how many hours to put in. You choose.... I could go on but I
think you see the pattern. Anyone telling you these choices don't exist has
made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

