Hey Reader,
A quick break from me screaming at you to run faster. To stop doing random acts of nothingness. To cause way more problems and stop looking for comfort. Also. Just finish the job.
I want to talk about co-founders, why you should think about one, and the misunderstood reason why the capital markets love them so much. Why a newsletter about it? Because for so many people starting, this is a really tough mind game…. and deserves some reflection.
But also. Hurry up. Be specific. And finish the job!
The question comes up in huge volume of emails I get. Do I NEED a co-founder? And especially for non-technical founders, do I NEED a technical co-founder? With the rise of ai-coding, the question gets louder.
But “need” is the wrong question.
The real question is why you’re thinking about it. Are you trying to raise VC money? Are you unclear on your actual capability to execute?
Maybe you just feel like you need a friend on the journey… Rethink, this isn’t about friendship or even balance, it’s ONLY about forces. Co-founders compress time, risk, and learning in ways solo founders have to manufacture deliberately.
The TL;DR is that the reason you want a co-founder is because you want to move at asymmetric speed. If this is you, stop reading and start hunting.
|
|
Starting A Startup: Build Something People Want
Every founder starts at zero. No one starts with a product, customers, revenue, or a real clue how it will all play out.
Failure is the result of not doing everything in your power to turn your nothing into something. It's that simple.
Want to get in front of 140,000+ founders at $3 CPC? Go here.
|
|
If you want venture $$ - then investors (at-large) want co-founders - it’s that simple. Not because they’re morally better but because the math works for them. Hear that again. Co-founders is a math problem….
If no to raising money, then do whatever you want :) but, I think what hasn’t been explained clearly is the foul paradox behind this thinking.
Co-founders increase your chance of failure. Fact. More conflict. More equity splits. More ways to fall apart. To state again - you are MORE likely to fail with a co-founder than without one.
So WHY THE F does every accelerator and investor nearly demand it...
With a co-founder you also have a higher likelihood of escape velocity. Not guaranteed, just higher chance the rocket ship lands and the startup becomes worth a f*ck-ton.
Which in VC terms means a fund returner. And that’s all VCs care about. Getting the maximum possible return on their money… (which is a reasonable expectation!!)
So from their lens, failure and chugging along are the same, neither returns the fund. So, they don’t want you to survive, they want you to explode or die trying - so the math... the odds of “explode” are higher with a co-founder. That’s it. And if you’re not going to be the fund returner, they’d rather you fail fast so they can move on.
To use a foul investor term - this is not a lifestyle business. They want you to win or fail. Chugging along is the worst outcome for them.
So when investors say they prefer co-founders, they’re not following some arbitrary pattern. They’re following the math. More co-founders in the portfolio = more shots at escape velocity = higher chance of returning the fund. Still math.
But for you….. having a cofo, does mean, higher chance of failure.
Separate to the math, it does seem reasonable that an investor, or even a customer or employee, would want you to have a technical co-founder because… you’re a software company, bit weird not to have a technical person somewhere at the top. So if you don't want a cofo you have to prove why it is not reasonable. For YOU.
So ignoring the failure risk, why do cofos increase the odds of escape velocity so dramatically? SPEEEED.
When you rent talent (employee), no matter how great, how long they have been with you, how much you pay, it is very tough to replicate core values you would get “by default” with a cofo….
1. Shared Context
Someone who knows where you are right now, where tomorrow HAS to deliver, and what the ish 6/12/long term vision in your head actually means. As in, they understand without the brief, or translation, or PRD docs or any other fuzz. They just know, because it’s theirs also…
2. Asymmetric Speed
Employees build for you vs a co-founder builds with you. A cofo goes from idea → prototype → demo tonight because they are as excited about this idea, this unlock, this opportunity as you are. The clock speed difference is brutal.
3. Trust Symmetry
When you’re non-technical and solo, you’re constantly in an information deficit, probably the reason you're thinking you need one… You’re guessing whether things are hard, how long things should take, if you are going too slow, or if the reason a dev gave you for a bug or delay is bullshit. A cofo removes that power imbalance.
4. Credibility Ownership
Investors (and customers) want someone who can go deeeeeep on where this is going and what this means. Rented technical talent is rented credibility - so no technical co-founder makes you a business person with a dev.
5. Resilience
Startups are foul, new ways for you to die every day and so when you are solo one bad moment can knock the whole week/month sideways. Whereas two founders give each other some emotional redundancy, the support to keep going, the we are a team and we got this… because it’s a lot easier hearing from a cofo than you mumbling it to yourself.
Updated TL;DR. Two obsessed people in a room obvi have a higher chance to create escape velocity at a level one founder with a dev rarely does.
IF YOU DON’T WANT ONE
That’s your choice. And that’s fine. Seriously. More than fine. But, you just need to show to yourself (or the market) how you’re neutralizing the forces that would normally break solo non-technical founders.
What do I generally think you need to be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt…. to even contemplate going at it alone...
- Insane discipline and execution speed as a solo operator, as in, f*ck that I can go 300x alone. (yes, I know, if you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to go far, go together) BUT at the beginning if you can go fast, then you can always add a cofo later…
- Enough cash to buy what others get through equity, as in you can buy top tier, incredible talent that will give you the lock in, without having to give up equity.
- Distribution so strong that early product quality matters less, as in, you already have a line of people out the door waiting to buy your product that you have not built yet (proof undeniable).
- Deep deeeeep domain insight that derisks half the build because this is not an iteration game, you know this market so well, this is a job to be done game.
- A wedge narrow enough that speed isn’t your competition yet because you have market ownership in some form (proof undeniable).
- A long runway, meaning the market will wait and this isn’t a land-grab where 6 months slower means you lose. You have time because timing isn’t the competition.
These are all valid and real, but you still have to agree and accept that we cannot pretend physics of escape velocity doesn’t exist. If you opt out, the burden is simple:
Show how you’re replacing speed, credibility, trust symmetry, resilience, or compounding with something stronger.
Those forces don’t disappear so you are either getting them from a co-founder or you’re manufacturing them another way.
How to find them, split equity, not kill each other, and be a brilliant cofo is another day.
Exhale.
If I can be of service, feel free to grab time.
LFG.
- James
Not A Subscriber?
Join 150k+ StartUp Founders reading my weekly newsletter offering tactical insights to start, scale, and fund their startup. Real advice from a 3x exited founder.
|
8424 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite A523, Los Angeles, CA 90069
Unsubscribe · Preferences