

What makes someone a "Co-founder"  - su0mynona

Hi all,<p>I've been looking everywhere, what gives someone the right to say this?<p>What’s the generally agreed upon definition of a “Co-founder”?<p>The hard definition I’d go for would be: A Co-founder is someone that joins a (1) start up that hasn’t taken significant or any outside investment; (2) instead of being paid with cash is compensated with some non-trivial amount of vesting equity (10%+); and (3) takes an operating role in the business.<p>Some other things that Co-founders do:
-Invest their own capital (also from friends/family)
-Work full-time on the company for little or no pay (40-80+ hours/week money permitting)
-Make large sacrifices such as staking professional reputation, moving across country, breaking up with girlfriends, etc.
-Are passionate and draw others into the vision<p>I’d also say there’s a difference between a Co-founder and Founder. If the distinction is made, it means the Founder has the credit for playing the most important role. They've also likely been working on the business longer or much longer.<p>Can we all agree? Any thoughts, or exceptions?
======
plamb
I agree except that 'taking an operating role in the business' is a big grey
area.

For example, I could see someone meeting (1) & (2) but merely providing some
of the graphics for your first prototype. This may be crucial to your first
prototype, but it is an extremely replaceable skill-set and it is not crucial
to the longevity of the company. This person should not be considered a co-
founder of your business. Now say the same person helps out with product
development, takes over marketing and demonstrates that he can one day manage
people and you've got someone who is less replaceable and more of a co-
founder. Therefore, I think you need to make really clear what you mean by
'operating role in the business' before you make decisions about co-founders

~~~
su0mynona
Well, an operating role is just a term that separates someone from being just
a highly paid advisor. I’m assuming here all parties are reasonable about what
they give equity for and we’re talking about a start up that can really go
big.

In this case, if someone is getting even 1%+ equity (even on a on a vesting
schedule), they’re likely contributing a lot more than just mockups. So if
they’re doing something, it’s early stage for little or no pay, I think the
point where someone is getting close to 10% is a signal that they’re
contributing enough to make them a co-founder.

I don’t think replaceability matters in defining a co-founder. Talent is
usually replaceable. Being a co-founder is more about being able to assume
significant risk in the face of uncertainty to build a business. Just because
someone contributes a lot to lifting a business off the ground doesn’t mean
they’ll do the same later, or contribute to it's "longevity." Many times
someone that works well in a 1-3 person start up might not fit as well as a
manager or when the company has 500+ employees. However that still doesn’t
take away from them being a co-founder.

