7 ms·

Here is a great sum of your post in one line: “If you’re absent during my struggle, don’t expect to be present during my success.” - Will Smith In my view the

Here is a great sum of your post in one line: “If you’re absent during my struggle, don’t expect to be present during my success.” - Will Smith In my view the way YC has been openly crushing morale of solo-founders for years is simply pathetic. Is it a crime to be a solo-founder? Despite equal number of successful startups from solo-ists, they continue to snub the potential and rather host even those who would easily rip-off ideas and interface from others. Given that they are almost a monopoly and monopsony "middleman" of all things startups and nearly control other movements (media/VCs/other stakeholders) I see this as a dangerous precedent for startups in general. Last thing we want is an Amazon-like agent that controls our destiny.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
logicallee 11y ago
Robertandy, YC is incredibly encouraging at stages that nobody else is. They have open lectures on how to start a startup. You can watch them for free right now. I feel your frustration that they don't fund certain things, but this should not be called crushing morale. Please remember one thing: the reason YCombinator is a monopoly is that others are cowardly, don't know how to invest at the seed stage and help founders build huge, scalable businesses with a community of awesome people around them. This community is a hallmark of YC, and one of the obvious things that must be true about any founding group that has at least 2 members is that by definition they are social enough to keep a group of at least 2 cofounders together. If you feel YCombinator is a monopoly you have to please by having a cofounder, why don't you get a cofounder?
- robertandy 11y ago
  Disagree! The entire process is rigged against solo-founders and you CANNOT deny that fact. Even your own last sentence in the end contradicts you. > why don't you get a cofounder. Dude what about this: I don't want to marry. I do not want to own a house. I do not want a co-founder.
  - actraub 11y ago
    Can you share anything about your startup?
  - logicallee 11y ago
    so what, you just want some money? sell something online. I don't see what YC has to do with your plans. if you don't like their preferences (over things you control) then what do you need YC for? it's easier to build something that starts making money online, than it is to put together an application that gets accepted by YC. (even with a team.) if you just want money do that.
  - nartz 11y ago
    You're not required to have a co-founder. No need to be angry about this, but be objective: two or three smart people can accomplish more than one smart person. You can work hard and maybe bootstrap your way to an MVP of a product, but sooner or later the amount of work in the startup will become too much. When it does, you are going to need to build a team around you to handle the load. The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute, and second, about focusing that team on an interesting idea.
    - aliakhtar 11y ago
      > The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute I disagree. Having a team of employees is quite different from giving up 50% of your equity. Its been said by YC partners themselves that co-founder disputes are a major reason why startups fail. A co-founder just means a lot of additional risk. May be if you both have some crucial skills that you bring to the table, it'd be worth taking on a co-founder. But if you can build the product on your own, I just don't see any good reason to give up 50% equity + take on the risk of disputes arising.
      - Frondo 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_sentient 11y ago
YC doesn't have some sort of moral objection to solo founders. They simply exist to find and fund huge companies, and smart risk/upside management is fundamental to winning that game. Being a solo founder represents added execution risk, particularly in the early stages of a startup -- which coincidentally, is precisely where YC funds most companies. They aren't the only party with this bias either. Downstream investors share these concerns, and when you add financing risk to execution risk, you start to get the picture. Of course, all of this can be overcome as a solo founder, and YC does fund solo founders at a roughly 1/10 ratio to co-founded teams. However, it usually means de-risking yourself in some other area (i.e show tons of traction, have a proven track record, already have an exit, etc). It's not a crime to be a solo founder, and plenty of great companies get built that way. Just understand that without the above, you may not have a venture-fundable company.
- robertandy 11y ago
  > YC doesn't have some sort of moral objection to solo founders. I disagree with you here. Sure, rest of the bay area sucks even more, but YC (being the frontier) can't get away from its terrible karma here first.
alain94040 11y ago
From http://foundrs.com/find-a-cofounder http://foundrs.com/find-a-cofounder : (the wrong reasons to want a co-founder:) Yes, it's true that startups with only one founder are more likely to fail. But it's due to signaling: if you, as passionate about your idea as you are, can't even convince one more person to join you, how will you get users excited to download your app, get investors excited about the market, and get Microsoft and Coca-Cola to partner with you? Solo founders usually fail because they are bad at convincing anyone of anything.
- robertandy 11y ago
  > usually fail because they are bad at convincing anyone of anything. Without any data on usually vs. unusually a debate is lost anyway! FWIS there are enough stories of successes from solo-founders to contradict your theory - flat on its face. > can't even convince one more person to join you ... is not the same thing as don't want another person in the founding team. I still do not see how that 10 year old logic of a co-founder must-have is going to hold good in the coming next 10 years. I may individually fail but times for startups have changed, haven't they? Also it is still a bad deal for most entrepreneurs (especially those who are outside) to let YC become the fulcrum of startup destiny - for it has almost become a monopoly and a monopsony as I'd mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter whether YC likes it or not.
  - quadrature 11y ago
    Could you share your data on sucessful solo founders vs teams of 2 or more ?
    - robertandy 11y ago
      Notable ones that come to my mind are eBay, Balasmiq, Khan Academy, Amazon but there are definitely more stories out there.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

logicallee 11y ago

Robertandy, YC is incredibly encouraging at stages that nobody else is. They have open lectures on how to start a startup. You can watch them for free right now. I feel your frustration that they don't fund certain things, but this should not be called crushing morale. Please remember one thing: the reason YCombinator is a monopoly is that others are cowardly, don't know how to invest at the seed stage and help founders build huge, scalable businesses with a community of awesome people around them. This community is a hallmark of YC, and one of the obvious things that must be true about any founding group that has at least 2 members is that by definition they are social enough to keep a group of at least 2 cofounders together. If you feel YCombinator is a monopoly you have to please by having a cofounder, why don't you get a cofounder?

robertandy 11y ago
Disagree! The entire process is rigged against solo-founders and you CANNOT deny that fact. Even your own last sentence in the end contradicts you. > why don't you get a cofounder. Dude what about this: I don't want to marry. I do not want to own a house. I do not want a co-founder.
- actraub 11y ago
  Can you share anything about your startup?
- logicallee 11y ago
  so what, you just want some money? sell something online. I don't see what YC has to do with your plans. if you don't like their preferences (over things you control) then what do you need YC for? it's easier to build something that starts making money online, than it is to put together an application that gets accepted by YC. (even with a team.) if you just want money do that.
- nartz 11y ago
  You're not required to have a co-founder. No need to be angry about this, but be objective: two or three smart people can accomplish more than one smart person. You can work hard and maybe bootstrap your way to an MVP of a product, but sooner or later the amount of work in the startup will become too much. When it does, you are going to need to build a team around you to handle the load. The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute, and second, about focusing that team on an interesting idea.
  - aliakhtar 11y ago
    > The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute I disagree. Having a team of employees is quite different from giving up 50% of your equity. Its been said by YC partners themselves that co-founder disputes are a major reason why startups fail. A co-founder just means a lot of additional risk. May be if you both have some crucial skills that you bring to the table, it'd be worth taking on a co-founder. But if you can build the product on your own, I just don't see any good reason to give up 50% equity + take on the risk of disputes arising.
    - Frondo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

_sentient 11y ago

YC doesn't have some sort of moral objection to solo founders. They simply exist to find and fund huge companies, and smart risk/upside management is fundamental to winning that game. Being a solo founder represents added execution risk, particularly in the early stages of a startup -- which coincidentally, is precisely where YC funds most companies. They aren't the only party with this bias either. Downstream investors share these concerns, and when you add financing risk to execution risk, you start to get the picture. Of course, all of this can be overcome as a solo founder, and YC does fund solo founders at a roughly 1/10 ratio to co-founded teams. However, it usually means de-risking yourself in some other area (i.e show tons of traction, have a proven track record, already have an exit, etc). It's not a crime to be a solo founder, and plenty of great companies get built that way. Just understand that without the above, you may not have a venture-fundable company.

robertandy 11y ago
> YC doesn't have some sort of moral objection to solo founders. I disagree with you here. Sure, rest of the bay area sucks even more, but YC (being the frontier) can't get away from its terrible karma here first.

alain94040 11y ago

From http://foundrs.com/find-a-cofounder http://foundrs.com/find-a-cofounder : (the wrong reasons to want a co-founder:) Yes, it's true that startups with only one founder are more likely to fail. But it's due to signaling: if you, as passionate about your idea as you are, can't even convince one more person to join you, how will you get users excited to download your app, get investors excited about the market, and get Microsoft and Coca-Cola to partner with you? Solo founders usually fail because they are bad at convincing anyone of anything.

robertandy 11y ago
> usually fail because they are bad at convincing anyone of anything. Without any data on usually vs. unusually a debate is lost anyway! FWIS there are enough stories of successes from solo-founders to contradict your theory - flat on its face. > can't even convince one more person to join you ... is not the same thing as don't want another person in the founding team. I still do not see how that 10 year old logic of a co-founder must-have is going to hold good in the coming next 10 years. I may individually fail but times for startups have changed, haven't they? Also it is still a bad deal for most entrepreneurs (especially those who are outside) to let YC become the fulcrum of startup destiny - for it has almost become a monopoly and a monopsony as I'd mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter whether YC likes it or not.
- quadrature 11y ago
  Could you share your data on sucessful solo founders vs teams of 2 or more ?
  - robertandy 11y ago
    Notable ones that come to my mind are eBay, Balasmiq, Khan Academy, Amazon but there are definitely more stories out there.