When do you want to be a solo founder. And when is it better to have a co-founder?
During my time in international communities, I got quite a few offers to become a marketing co-founder.
I accepted exactly zero.
Usually, it was because:
– The other person was already putting me in an inferior position: “You’ll get 40%, I’ll get 60% because I’m developing the product, but we’ll be working on it equally.”
– The product idea wasn’t something I was excited about.
– I was apparently supposed to be the “figurehead” who would help get VC funding, but probably having very little actual decision-making power. :D
That said, I do think having a co-founder can be great, especially when:
– You’re raising funding
– You have the same vision, values, and ambitions
– You complement each other’s skills
– You need someone for the mental support (because being a solo founder can hurt sometimes)
So, which model do you prefer, solo founder or co-founder?
And in what situations do you think each one makes more sense?
Feel free to share your bizarre co-founder experiences too. :D
Replies
I enjoy working on many projects at a time and usually having a co-founder means it's exclusive. Which I don't accept, but I enjoy co-founding with others and usually the percentage is not a problem as it represents the amount of work I will do in the future.
@bengeekly I think that you need to find the right person. That's not always easy :)
What do you think is harder building alon or with a co founder
@shivam_kushwaha16 If your co-founder is stubborn, so is building with a co-founder :D Otherwise, a co-founder is a better option.
Not a founder, so this is just the marketing seat watching from outside. The split you mention upfront, the 60/40 "inferior position" framing, tends to be the tell rather than something that gets fixed later. If the ownership isn't equal going in, it rarely evens out after.
@yelyzaveta_kibets The thing is that I would not have any word in the business. That would be pretty scary.
@busmark_w_nika Losing your seat at the table is the real risk, not the split. I'd rather stay solo on the Mac apps I work on than trade my say for someone else's funding round.
I co-founded with my husband, so we became partners in life first and then decided to do a business together. Our skills are complementary: he's more on the technical side, I focus on business development, though we advise each other and make the bigger decisions together. The shared values and vision you mentioned came built in for us, which helps a lot, and the mental support part is real too.
@alieksia What did you launch? And doesn't it interfere with your personal life?
@busmark_w_nika We're building a self-guided tool that helps people get clear on their core values and then actually act on them. It's not just another values quiz that hands you a result and stops, it's closer to coaching, walking you through concrete steps to bring your daily life closer to what matters to you.
And no, it doesn't really interfere. We were partners in life first, so working together came naturally, and we keep some separation between work and downtime. Being aligned on where we're taking it helps too :)
@alieksia This is a couple goal! 🥹
The equity split argument is usually a proxy for a conversation nobody's having, which is who decides when you disagree. We split Zeplik even and it still took a bad month to work out that even equity doesn't tell you who breaks the tie on product. I'd trust a pair who've shipped something together before over any amount of complementary skills on paper. Vision alignment is easy to fake in month one, argument style isn't.
@asadmalik901 What is better? To co-found with a friend (who we already know) or with someone new we met on the internet? :D (that's the most common situation for me – online presence)
@busmark_w_nika Neither is safer, they just break differently. With a friend you get trust and no way to have the hard conversation, because you've both got years of not fighting to protect. With someone off the internet you can be blunt from week one, you just have no idea how they behave when things go badly. If it's online I'd do a paid month on something small and real before any equity talk, and I'd pick the one who pushes back on me during that month.
@asadmalik901 @busmark_w_nika I've been in both situations: one project co-founded with a friend and another with a stranger from the internet. Unfortunately, neither went well, because those people weren't doing what they were promising. I had positive experiences too, so for me it matters more if a person can deliver rather than prior relationship with that person. It's quite possible they don't know how to do something at first, but if they are eager to learn and don't afraid of challenges, that's a game changer.
@busmark_w_nika @alieksia That's an argument for testing delivery before equity, not after. Eagerness to learn is free to display in month one, what tells you anything is the first time something slips and nobody's watching. Whether they flag it themselves or you find out three weeks later is the whole signal. Prior relationship doesn't change who delivers, it just changes how long it takes you to notice they aren't.
Co founder is better for commercial projects imo.
For open source I might work alone but for startups...
I work best with a partner or partners
@build_with_aj I think that when someone wants to raise money, they are more likely to give them to teams.
Solo for me, twenty years now. It wasn't about skills. I just didn't want anyone else having a say in how I spend my week, so I could drop everything when my kid got sick. Same reason I passed when VCs brought up going public.
I'd agree a co-founder makes sense if you're raising. If you're not, one person with good tools can cover more than people expect.