Finding a Cofounder
26 comments
Another thing to consider:
We've been about 70% complete for version 1 roughly half a dozen times now. We were 70% complete in April of last year, which we actually did release (it's getting users now, but not many). We were 70% complete in October, when we sent along a demo with our YC app. But we realized that it wouldn't work for the general case, so we went back to the drawing board. We were 70% complete in November, when I realized we were rewriting things too much with each additional feature and stepped back for a week to actually design the thing. We were 70% (well, more like 50% by my reckoning) complete in December, when we switched web frameworks. We're about 70% complete now, though if this is anything like past 70%s, it's probably more like 40%. Now I don't trust any estimate that's not backed up by Trac tickets.
Always remember the 90-90 rule: "The first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% takes the other 90%."
Many startups have to go through multiple rewrites before they have something useful - Reddit's on their 3rd (though they launched with their first), I heard Xobni had to redo their first try to be more ambitious, YouTube completely revamped the site to make it stickier, my last day job went through about 4 rewrites before we launched the product (which is the 7th product it's launched...none of them really got product-market fit), the job before that changed directions 4 times in the year I was there and completely rewrote things about a half-dozen times, never actually releasing anything.
I'd look at the stuff you do now as exploratory programming; your job is to find out more about the area, so that it eventually gets to the point where it "clicks" and you can just crank out code that works. You're still very early in the product process; a cofounder could add a lot of value down the road.
We've been about 70% complete for version 1 roughly half a dozen times now. We were 70% complete in April of last year, which we actually did release (it's getting users now, but not many). We were 70% complete in October, when we sent along a demo with our YC app. But we realized that it wouldn't work for the general case, so we went back to the drawing board. We were 70% complete in November, when I realized we were rewriting things too much with each additional feature and stepped back for a week to actually design the thing. We were 70% (well, more like 50% by my reckoning) complete in December, when we switched web frameworks. We're about 70% complete now, though if this is anything like past 70%s, it's probably more like 40%. Now I don't trust any estimate that's not backed up by Trac tickets.
Always remember the 90-90 rule: "The first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% takes the other 90%."
Many startups have to go through multiple rewrites before they have something useful - Reddit's on their 3rd (though they launched with their first), I heard Xobni had to redo their first try to be more ambitious, YouTube completely revamped the site to make it stickier, my last day job went through about 4 rewrites before we launched the product (which is the 7th product it's launched...none of them really got product-market fit), the job before that changed directions 4 times in the year I was there and completely rewrote things about a half-dozen times, never actually releasing anything.
I'd look at the stuff you do now as exploratory programming; your job is to find out more about the area, so that it eventually gets to the point where it "clicks" and you can just crank out code that works. You're still very early in the product process; a cofounder could add a lot of value down the road.
Points well taken...and as I see you are talking from experience...exactly what I was looking for to put my mind at ease. We are planning to meet in a few weeks...if all goes well I'll have a new member on the team that seems as enthusiastic as I am about the project.
I like what you said exploratory programming because with a new cofounder I can sit down and say, "look this is what I've found will work, this needs help, this needs someone to just start outright, and do you have any ideas how the hell to make this work." Thanks for replying...I'm glad you did.
I like what you said exploratory programming because with a new cofounder I can sit down and say, "look this is what I've found will work, this needs help, this needs someone to just start outright, and do you have any ideas how the hell to make this work." Thanks for replying...I'm glad you did.
I would suggest letting go of the idea that you've created much value.
One way to look at it is this:
If he came on TOMORROW and both of you busted ass for 12 months, how much of the value at the end of that 12 months would have been built before he came on? How about in 4 years (your standard vesting plan)?
The thing to key on is VESTING. Make damn sure that he gets ownership in a trickle (starting after a few months maybe as a trial period)... But make sure they he can eventually get really close to being an equal partner (maybe a touch less than 50% due to the fact that you got started a touch early).
One way to look at it is this:
If he came on TOMORROW and both of you busted ass for 12 months, how much of the value at the end of that 12 months would have been built before he came on? How about in 4 years (your standard vesting plan)?
The thing to key on is VESTING. Make damn sure that he gets ownership in a trickle (starting after a few months maybe as a trial period)... But make sure they he can eventually get really close to being an equal partner (maybe a touch less than 50% due to the fact that you got started a touch early).
Giving a person 50% of a company that's vested over 4-5 years is much different than giving a person 50% of a company the day the come in.
If you come up with a decent vesting schedule, I think that you can probably avoid a lot of the pitfalls that you've described: What if he screws it up?
If he screws it up, fire him, and let him walk with the 3-5% he's earned in the 3-6 months that he's been working on the product.
If you come up with a decent vesting schedule, I think that you can probably avoid a lot of the pitfalls that you've described: What if he screws it up?
If he screws it up, fire him, and let him walk with the 3-5% he's earned in the 3-6 months that he's been working on the product.
This is excellent advice. Funny it comes from the same person I disagreed with above. Oh well.
What makes you think you NEED to stay in control and "provide vision"? I started alone and within a month realized that I was going crazy. Then I teamed up with my long-time dev. partner and he not only provided some initial funding, but introduced us to a few very interesting people, then we got a 3rd guy who's like Linux God, who I keep learning new things from every day, now we're about to add a kick-ass marketing muscle - the dude keeps impressing us with his ideas and suggestions.
Right now, at this moment, if I pretend I am dead for a day, I still know the gears will keep rolling and the engine will keep accelerating. This is an enormously helpful feeling: stop being greedy and give your company a chance to survive.
That's my 2c.
Right now, at this moment, if I pretend I am dead for a day, I still know the gears will keep rolling and the engine will keep accelerating. This is an enormously helpful feeling: stop being greedy and give your company a chance to survive.
That's my 2c.
Well the original idea came from me...so at this point the original concept has been on my own. And unlike you I didn't feel overloaded after one month. Actually at this point things are progressing very smoothly and to be honest I actually don't need the help. I know what I want it to be, I've created that, and thus far my testers have really loved it. So yes, I feel that I don't want to veer to much from that. If I had a new guy try to change all that and now say, great work...now let me drive...that would be bothersome to me. What I really need is someone to task out to...and if during that time I get some good ideas I want to have the final say.
Let me put it to you in these terms. Unlike you I did spend 6 months alone working an additional 4-5 hour/days on top of 8 at work day job, and about 8 more on the weekend. So lets say thats 30hrs/week * 50/hr (just an estimate...I actually charge over $80 at my day job)...but just for argument sake I've invested in time and effort 6mo * 4wks * 30hrs/wk * $50/hr = $36,000. So just in time alone that how much I've invested. Now why would I want to just give that away to someone who sat on the sideline and waited until it was a good enough idea to just jump in when the product is almost complete?
Let me put it to you in these terms. Unlike you I did spend 6 months alone working an additional 4-5 hour/days on top of 8 at work day job, and about 8 more on the weekend. So lets say thats 30hrs/week * 50/hr (just an estimate...I actually charge over $80 at my day job)...but just for argument sake I've invested in time and effort 6mo * 4wks * 30hrs/wk * $50/hr = $36,000. So just in time alone that how much I've invested. Now why would I want to just give that away to someone who sat on the sideline and waited until it was a good enough idea to just jump in when the product is almost complete?
You definitely have to agree upfront on what stake/salary your employee would get. And when you say "this is my vision and things should be done my way" it makes me think you're looking for more of an employee than a cofounder. Which is fine, by the way, just be aware that that isn't a very cofounder-like mentality.
You're still very early stage, so the first person you brought on would probably need a significant chunk of equity, unless you're paying a nice salary.
You're still very early stage, so the first person you brought on would probably need a significant chunk of equity, unless you're paying a nice salary.
This is just an idea (I've never done this myself) but perhaps you could create a new company with a more even equity distribution between the founders and then exclusively license what you currently have to it with an option to purchase outright for some amount. If the company fails you'll still have what you originally brought to the table.
Sept 2007 isn't very long ago. It seems this person you know would be interested in adding features and you should let him. Even if you don't like them all you can make them optional. It just doesn't seem like you have a lot to loose and only stand to gain a great deal in this. His work will "make the pie bigger" so to speak, raise your valuation in the end.
What makes you think things should be done your way? I'm sure he'll have some ideas that are at least as good as yours.
This is definitely a valid point.
I am in the exact same boat, so I don't have many answers, just more questions.
I think I'm 60% complete, but who's to say?
I have coded everything just the way I want, what if the next person has better ideas?
What about equity? I've put too much into this to keep less than 50%.
I would love some help, but I don't want to compromise anything.
Actually, you're ahead of me. You have someone in mind. Every potential co-founder I consider doesn't even come close.
Just thought you'd like to know you're not alone. I'm interested in others' opinions as well.
I think I'm 60% complete, but who's to say?
I have coded everything just the way I want, what if the next person has better ideas?
What about equity? I've put too much into this to keep less than 50%.
I would love some help, but I don't want to compromise anything.
Actually, you're ahead of me. You have someone in mind. Every potential co-founder I consider doesn't even come close.
Just thought you'd like to know you're not alone. I'm interested in others' opinions as well.
It would be pretty strange for you to give a cofounder more than 50% equity.
I'm in the same boat as you and as lanceusa, although I am probably 90% done with the alpha. Maybe at this stage, it's better to finish the prototype by yourself, and at that point try to get funding? Once you have funding (or can afford to self-fund, which I can't), just hire the person with the tech skills that you need, instead of giving equity? Just my two cents.
Pretty good two cents. I have a feeling that's what will happen.
I often remember the words of Felix Dennis who says he'll do just about anything to succeed---except give up equity. That advice runs counter to much of the thinking here. Then again, Dennis is a billionaire. His book, How to Get Rich, is one of my favorites. (How could you not love, "Money did not make me happy. But it definitely improved my sex life."?)
I often remember the words of Felix Dennis who says he'll do just about anything to succeed---except give up equity. That advice runs counter to much of the thinking here. Then again, Dennis is a billionaire. His book, How to Get Rich, is one of my favorites. (How could you not love, "Money did not make me happy. But it definitely improved my sex life."?)
I think that's LOUSY 2 cents. Take the top 200 sites (by traffic) and show many how many have a single founder.
The number to optimize is your chance of getting ANY payday- not your percentage of ownership. Would you trade 50% of your company to increase your chance of success from 2.1% to 4.2%? I have no idea what those numbers are (but I suspect that a co-founder more than doubles your shot at success)... But if you're more concerned with personal wealth than having a successful company, you're already a step behind.
If you think you'll just run out and get some funding so you can "hire" a partner, you should consider that savvy investors are thinking one of two things:
1) This guy either isn't persuasive enough or doesn't have a good enough idea to get a co-founder, OR
2) This guy is jealously guarding his equity, when he could add 50 hours a week of free and passionate labor from someone with a (hopefully) complementary skillset OR
3) This guy isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the skills and answers to pull off v1 of this thing.
The number to optimize is your chance of getting ANY payday- not your percentage of ownership. Would you trade 50% of your company to increase your chance of success from 2.1% to 4.2%? I have no idea what those numbers are (but I suspect that a co-founder more than doubles your shot at success)... But if you're more concerned with personal wealth than having a successful company, you're already a step behind.
If you think you'll just run out and get some funding so you can "hire" a partner, you should consider that savvy investors are thinking one of two things:
1) This guy either isn't persuasive enough or doesn't have a good enough idea to get a co-founder, OR
2) This guy is jealously guarding his equity, when he could add 50 hours a week of free and passionate labor from someone with a (hopefully) complementary skillset OR
3) This guy isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the skills and answers to pull off v1 of this thing.
You can add:
4) The guy is cautious because he has been burnt before. Every cofounder he has had has in previous ventures has either: failed to fully commit, failed to perform, reneged on their agreement, suffered personal tragedy, or died.
Just because someone doesn't have a co-founder doesn't mean that it must be 1, 2, or 3. Personally, I'm tired of hearing #1 - I've always thought it was without logic.
And don't forget - it's a lot easier to find co-founders when you're still in school with like minded people with time on their hands. Things get a lot tougher when your peers (if you can find any) have families and mortgages. Not being able to miss a paycheck is a tough hurdle to overcome.
Finding a co-founder is more like getting married than dating. I'd much rather be alone than be with the wrong person. I'll either find the right person or launch alone. In the meantime, I keep working.
If you have a good team, consider yourself very fortunate! You've already completed a hurdle that others struggle with through no fault of their own. So they keep on working and reaching out to groups like this. OP is looking for suggestions, not a diagnosis of what's wrong with him from a stranger.
4) The guy is cautious because he has been burnt before. Every cofounder he has had has in previous ventures has either: failed to fully commit, failed to perform, reneged on their agreement, suffered personal tragedy, or died.
Just because someone doesn't have a co-founder doesn't mean that it must be 1, 2, or 3. Personally, I'm tired of hearing #1 - I've always thought it was without logic.
And don't forget - it's a lot easier to find co-founders when you're still in school with like minded people with time on their hands. Things get a lot tougher when your peers (if you can find any) have families and mortgages. Not being able to miss a paycheck is a tough hurdle to overcome.
Finding a co-founder is more like getting married than dating. I'd much rather be alone than be with the wrong person. I'll either find the right person or launch alone. In the meantime, I keep working.
If you have a good team, consider yourself very fortunate! You've already completed a hurdle that others struggle with through no fault of their own. So they keep on working and reaching out to groups like this. OP is looking for suggestions, not a diagnosis of what's wrong with him from a stranger.
Heh-- I'm not saying that people who don't find co-founders are wrong/stupid/bad.
I am saying that people who don't WANT to find co-founders are generally (IMO) misguided and should reconsider.
FWIW, me and my 38 year old co-founder found our 30 year old co-founder 6 months back. I know how hard it is and how scary it is (we all set aside really lucrative jobs). I agree with you about the marriage analogy.
But, sticking with that analogy-- having bad spouses in your past is a pretty lousy reason to swear off of dating. ;-)
I am saying that people who don't WANT to find co-founders are generally (IMO) misguided and should reconsider.
FWIW, me and my 38 year old co-founder found our 30 year old co-founder 6 months back. I know how hard it is and how scary it is (we all set aside really lucrative jobs). I agree with you about the marriage analogy.
But, sticking with that analogy-- having bad spouses in your past is a pretty lousy reason to swear off of dating. ;-)
You said it much more elegantly than I could. To add to reasons why it's hard to find a co-founder, it's harder to find a hacker co-founder when you've just started on the path to hackerdom, as is my case.
Yes, I didn't even get that far. This may be the biggest hurdle. Of all the hackers I've ever met, I wouldn't even approach 99%. I've seen their work.
I know 2 rock stars who are local and I've worked with before that I would love to be with now. One is laid up after a horrible motorcycle accident and the other is going through a nasty divorce. Lunch and phone calls, yes. Co-founders, no.
Interestingly enough, I'm corresponding off-line with several people from this board. Who knows, maybe that will lead somewhere.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is". Do you think if he was a lonely hacker, he'd be here now?
I know 2 rock stars who are local and I've worked with before that I would love to be with now. One is laid up after a horrible motorcycle accident and the other is going through a nasty divorce. Lunch and phone calls, yes. Co-founders, no.
Interestingly enough, I'm corresponding off-line with several people from this board. Who knows, maybe that will lead somewhere.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is". Do you think if he was a lonely hacker, he'd be here now?
he sais he doesnt have someone in mind, so taking the risk to do it on his own is an indication at least of passion.
Points well taken
(PG) said get a co-founder,and yes he is The Authority.
Something about the way that's phrased makes me wonder if pg could play the Donald Trump role in a justin.tv/YC reality show along the lines of "The Apprentice".
I had a similar understanding of what YCombinator could be like last spring, with the same TV show format and YCombinator company involvement as you've thought.
I have started my own project in Sept 2007.
I've managed to just about get it to 70% complete for version 1 which I am schedule to release the beginning of April.
Along the way I've invited a few alpha testers who I knew from another site which would be a competitor. While chatting almost daily with one of the alpha testers (who is also a professional programmer as myself) I thought to myself wouldn't it be great if he were to come on board and directly help guide the ship so to speak. His many suggestions have been pretty helpful and good...although sometimes he tends to make suggestions that replicate functionalities in sites he currently frequents.
My question is, what is expected of bringing on a cofounder later in the game? How do I establish that this is my vision and things should be done my way? Or should I just not be so paranoid in fear a second coder could just screw everything up? Should there be some agreement up front about who has what stake? What precautions should I look out for? He works for a good company in Austin and from our conversations he almost seems right up my alley...so it could turn out to be a golden opportunity and not the glooms day scenario I've been painting thus far.
Any encouragement or warning would be great.
By the way...make this dialog bigger Y...its freakin too small.