Ask HN: YC co-founder matching is bad
105 comments
Hello - I'm one of the people at YC who work on YC's co-founder matching site (which, if you aren't familiar with it, is at https://www.ycombinator.com/cofounder-matching).
It's not totally clear to me if OP is referring to that product specifically or something else, but I figured I would take the opportunity to get feedback anyway!
We are very actively working on the co-founder matching site and would love to hear from people who have used it - what your experience was and how we could make it better.
We've been running the site for about two years now, since we launched it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27750298. Coincidentally, the idea actually grew out of open threads just like the ones OP suggested. We started by experimenting with those threads on HN and our Startup School forum, but nobody ever found an actual co-founder that way.
So we decided to build it as an actual product. Since we launched, over 20 teams that met on the site have gotten funded by YC, and many of them are doing quite well. So we think the early results are overall promising.
That said, co-founder matching is a very hard problem. It's a multi-sided marketplace with complex dynamics, and we know we have a lot of work to do to make it work for everyone. We'd love your feedback if you've tried it.
It's not totally clear to me if OP is referring to that product specifically or something else, but I figured I would take the opportunity to get feedback anyway!
We are very actively working on the co-founder matching site and would love to hear from people who have used it - what your experience was and how we could make it better.
We've been running the site for about two years now, since we launched it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27750298. Coincidentally, the idea actually grew out of open threads just like the ones OP suggested. We started by experimenting with those threads on HN and our Startup School forum, but nobody ever found an actual co-founder that way.
So we decided to build it as an actual product. Since we launched, over 20 teams that met on the site have gotten funded by YC, and many of them are doing quite well. So we think the early results are overall promising.
That said, co-founder matching is a very hard problem. It's a multi-sided marketplace with complex dynamics, and we know we have a lot of work to do to make it work for everyone. We'd love your feedback if you've tried it.
> We are very actively working on the co-founder matching site and would love to hear from people who have used it - what your experience was and how we could make it better.
I used it a year and a few months ago. I'm a technical person with 10 years working in startups. I treated it the way I'd treat a job search etc.
I matched with ~150 people. Talked to ~50 people. Got close/did trial project with 3. Did a deal with 1. Raised a VC pre-seed (similar process) and have had a wild journey since.
Some learnings:
* Met some really cool people, some amazing talent on the platform.
* Know what you're looking for (e.g. complimentary skillset, company stage). Matching experience was key - didn't want too little (still making mistakes) but not too much (wanted an equal relationship, not a minor founder role).
* Co-founding is a relationship IMO. 'Matching' is just dating, 'trail project' is moving in together, and 'cofounding' is marriage. Expect to argue about curtains.
* It's hard to do and complex, this isn't handed on a plate. On the flip side, that's how business is, so builds skill sets that come in useful later.
Some ideas, if I ran this program:
1) Experiment with different interaction forms. E.g. 60 second video bio's to see if that helps people match faster.
2) Do a 'YC-lite' incubator program. We were never interested in the time or equity of a full YC program, so DIY'd fundraising, company formation etc. There's room to build community/support that's less intensive than YC's incubator, more suitable for founders who have matched and are building now... not waiting for incubator. I note that 20 match teams got YC funded... how many are doing well that YC knows nothing about?
I used it a year and a few months ago. I'm a technical person with 10 years working in startups. I treated it the way I'd treat a job search etc.
I matched with ~150 people. Talked to ~50 people. Got close/did trial project with 3. Did a deal with 1. Raised a VC pre-seed (similar process) and have had a wild journey since.
Some learnings:
* Met some really cool people, some amazing talent on the platform.
* Know what you're looking for (e.g. complimentary skillset, company stage). Matching experience was key - didn't want too little (still making mistakes) but not too much (wanted an equal relationship, not a minor founder role).
* Co-founding is a relationship IMO. 'Matching' is just dating, 'trail project' is moving in together, and 'cofounding' is marriage. Expect to argue about curtains.
* It's hard to do and complex, this isn't handed on a plate. On the flip side, that's how business is, so builds skill sets that come in useful later.
Some ideas, if I ran this program:
1) Experiment with different interaction forms. E.g. 60 second video bio's to see if that helps people match faster.
2) Do a 'YC-lite' incubator program. We were never interested in the time or equity of a full YC program, so DIY'd fundraising, company formation etc. There's room to build community/support that's less intensive than YC's incubator, more suitable for founders who have matched and are building now... not waiting for incubator. I note that 20 match teams got YC funded... how many are doing well that YC knows nothing about?
This is cool to hear (as another member of the CFM team!)
We have admittedly less insight in this type of 'success' (we talk to all of the teams that end up in a YC batch) but if you stopped actively using the platform and paused your account, you would have told us you met someone you were working with.
We have admittedly less insight in this type of 'success' (we talk to all of the teams that end up in a YC batch) but if you stopped actively using the platform and paused your account, you would have told us you met someone you were working with.
Similar situation here, thanks for sharing your journey this last time around, I'll have to reuse some of those ideas myself.
Anecdotally I think some training on preseed/seed funding may be beneficial.
I’ve met more than a few pre seed folks who are focused on equity retention. This is all well and good for a few exceptional founders, and they are welcome to seek out a compatible match. However there should be an asterisk on when people are looking for a founding engineer or otherwise giving out marginal equity.
I had a few such meetings which were educational- but ultimately non productive as it would not make financial sense for me to join a seed stage firm for less than a 50% stake. Of course the discussion is different for later stage firms.
That being said the speed dating events were fantastic.
I’ve met more than a few pre seed folks who are focused on equity retention. This is all well and good for a few exceptional founders, and they are welcome to seek out a compatible match. However there should be an asterisk on when people are looking for a founding engineer or otherwise giving out marginal equity.
I had a few such meetings which were educational- but ultimately non productive as it would not make financial sense for me to join a seed stage firm for less than a 50% stake. Of course the discussion is different for later stage firms.
That being said the speed dating events were fantastic.
"Founding engineers" are employees. The site is for finding cofounders. Using the site for hiring is strictly against the rules -strongly advise letting that know to people who are doing this and/or report them directly on the site. We really really don't want the site to degrade into another jobsearch tool.
Yes, this is definitely something that was happening.
We recently added a question to the profile about "equity expectations" to try to solve this. I'm hopeful that will help, because then you can just not match with people who don't align with your expectations; would love any feedback on this.
We recently added a question to the profile about "equity expectations" to try to solve this. I'm hopeful that will help, because then you can just not match with people who don't align with your expectations; would love any feedback on this.
> would love any feedback on this.
It's a great feature, however I suspect that you may get too many "I'm flexible" entries relative to how flexible people actually are. In practice I'm probably flexible on equity expectations if a well known engineer/founder wanted to partner with me - or X MM had been secured for funding.
While it might be too much information for a profile, allowing individuals to indicate equity preferences for specific company valuations in their match preferences might guide both parties to the right deal.
It's a great feature, however I suspect that you may get too many "I'm flexible" entries relative to how flexible people actually are. In practice I'm probably flexible on equity expectations if a well known engineer/founder wanted to partner with me - or X MM had been secured for funding.
While it might be too much information for a profile, allowing individuals to indicate equity preferences for specific company valuations in their match preferences might guide both parties to the right deal.
Hi, I have been using it since launch, have reviewed ~100s-1000s of profiles, have talked with ~50-80 people, did a try-out with 2, for 6 months each. (Background is: I am a technical founder with 6 prior startups, 2 of which were successful; still want to build something, looking for good ideas, and great execution people)
I'm still actively looking for high-quality cofounders to join, and will take anyone who jumps the (high) bar I've set that is required to make a startup a success. However, it is extremely frustrating to work with the site for a mix of cultural, and UX issues reasons.
Specifically:
* Establish a culture of people sharing both their ideas, and the progress they made so far on the project. If the "idea" section is empty / "will discuss on a phone call" / NDAs, that's a no-go from the start. You might want to add a text in the "idea" section of the profile builder, that _not sharing their idea_ is very very bad, and they will get passed on for that reason.
* Search, and a way to look at "everyone who wants to work on X". There are several usability issues with browsing people one-by-one: for one, there are some startup ideas that are very timely right now, and I want to know everyone who wants to work in that area. For another, I can't know if a person I've passed on ~10 months ago haven't pivoted into something more interesting. This is not a sector-specific selector, rather a full-text search for every profile who has specific keywords; with results displayed in a list, similar to cofounderslab.
* Having a profile checkbox, and ability to filter for high-quality founder signals: have built a startup before, have made it profitable, have sold things in the same product category he's thinking on launching a new thing in.
(These are off the top of my head, will edit, if other things come up)
I'm still actively looking for high-quality cofounders to join, and will take anyone who jumps the (high) bar I've set that is required to make a startup a success. However, it is extremely frustrating to work with the site for a mix of cultural, and UX issues reasons.
Specifically:
* Establish a culture of people sharing both their ideas, and the progress they made so far on the project. If the "idea" section is empty / "will discuss on a phone call" / NDAs, that's a no-go from the start. You might want to add a text in the "idea" section of the profile builder, that _not sharing their idea_ is very very bad, and they will get passed on for that reason.
* Search, and a way to look at "everyone who wants to work on X". There are several usability issues with browsing people one-by-one: for one, there are some startup ideas that are very timely right now, and I want to know everyone who wants to work in that area. For another, I can't know if a person I've passed on ~10 months ago haven't pivoted into something more interesting. This is not a sector-specific selector, rather a full-text search for every profile who has specific keywords; with results displayed in a list, similar to cofounderslab.
* Having a profile checkbox, and ability to filter for high-quality founder signals: have built a startup before, have made it profitable, have sold things in the same product category he's thinking on launching a new thing in.
(These are off the top of my head, will edit, if other things come up)
+1 on the site being lower value than it could be for repeat founders with previous successes, but who still want to build things with other people with extensive experience and a track record.
You could argue that if you're in that situation you should be relying on existing networks to propel you into your next thing, but sometimes you want a new start or things just aren't aligning time-wise with your former allies.
The majority of folks on the site have never done a startup before and are entirely unproven in a startup context, or have a couple of short stints that they unfortunately didn't learn much from because the thing never gained any traction, so they did "1 year experience 3 times over". Doesn't mean they're not potentially great startup material, it's pretty hard to get something to take off. But, it's still a pretty risky bet for someone who wants to derisk partners a tad more.
You could argue that if you're in that situation you should be relying on existing networks to propel you into your next thing, but sometimes you want a new start or things just aren't aligning time-wise with your former allies.
The majority of folks on the site have never done a startup before and are entirely unproven in a startup context, or have a couple of short stints that they unfortunately didn't learn much from because the thing never gained any traction, so they did "1 year experience 3 times over". Doesn't mean they're not potentially great startup material, it's pretty hard to get something to take off. But, it's still a pretty risky bet for someone who wants to derisk partners a tad more.
I was in a similar position to OP. I'll comment on
>You could argue that if you're in that situation you should be relying on existing networks to propel you into your next thing
That was very much the case for me. My network is the most valuable thing I posses in many ways, but it is 20 years old and it does stagnate a bit. I used YC founder match to find new connections with (younger) ambitious people who had a strong success drive. More established people tend to have far less bias to commit and act.
>You could argue that if you're in that situation you should be relying on existing networks to propel you into your next thing
That was very much the case for me. My network is the most valuable thing I posses in many ways, but it is 20 years old and it does stagnate a bit. I used YC founder match to find new connections with (younger) ambitious people who had a strong success drive. More established people tend to have far less bias to commit and act.
First of all, thanks for building it and as a user, the product is solid that matches the needs well. Note that I used 'matches' not 'solves' as the problem itself is so messy and difficult that a product like this could help but fundamentally it requires two people working together, which is super hard.
My way of somehow hacking it is to come in with low or no expectation. There are otherwise tons of great people on YC co-founder matching site, and almost all conversations I've had were excellent. Even if it didn't help me find a cofounder, I still rate the product highly.
My way of somehow hacking it is to come in with low or no expectation. There are otherwise tons of great people on YC co-founder matching site, and almost all conversations I've had were excellent. Even if it didn't help me find a cofounder, I still rate the product highly.
Also chiming in from the CFM team. This point resonated with me based on conversations I've had with some of the teams that matched & are still working together. The evaluation period: asking tough questions, trial projects, equity expectations, and setting a strong foundation to work together are important steps to add onto any cf search -- CFM platform or personal network.
Thank you so much for the reply. Can you please add a search or filtering? I don't want to keep clicking "next"
This. Also could you add a not interested in matching up because field option when someone tries to connect. And/or if you want to poke someone by letting them know you like what they are up to but you wouldn’t be good co-founder material.
Yes, this is one of the things we're working on next.
Excellent, thank you! The swiping model didn't feel like an ideal solution for the task.
I've used it and met some interesting folks; some whom I still chat with. One whom I seriously considered working with.
But ultimately no co-founders.
I think that there are different modalities for the folks on YC Co-Founder Matching and that's OK, IMO.
Like andrewfromx mentioned in a comment below, it would be great to be able to somehow identify and filter by those modalities. My sense is that there are some folks on there who would make great "first hires", but not necessarily "co-founder". There are some users on the platform who seem interested in joining a startup in the early stages (who should probably instead be on workatastartup.com instead) rather than actually co-founding a company.
But ultimately no co-founders.
I think that there are different modalities for the folks on YC Co-Founder Matching and that's OK, IMO.
Like andrewfromx mentioned in a comment below, it would be great to be able to somehow identify and filter by those modalities. My sense is that there are some folks on there who would make great "first hires", but not necessarily "co-founder". There are some users on the platform who seem interested in joining a startup in the early stages (who should probably instead be on workatastartup.com instead) rather than actually co-founding a company.
One thing that could improve is that it seems to filter on age and location. It should filter on specific skills.
it’d be great if you could find a way to screen out “lurkers” and “shoppers” … in other words, people who just like the idea of having a startup
Yes! YC calls them "scenesters", but the reality is that often you don't know if you're cut out for the gig until you actually do it, so lots of people have to experience it first-hand to realize they don't actually want the job.
I wish the same! My first couple weeks on co-founder matching were consumed with meeting a wide range of folks, most of whom in the "I'd like to start a company if the right co-founder / idea / other criteria present themselves" stage.
One thing that seems to reduce the noise is selecting "I'm working full time on my startup" and make that a requirement for co-founder. But it would be nice to also meet those who are not actively working on an idea but very committed to finding a co-founder to start something.
One thing that seems to reduce the noise is selecting "I'm working full time on my startup" and make that a requirement for co-founder. But it would be nice to also meet those who are not actively working on an idea but very committed to finding a co-founder to start something.
I actually would like to talk to people who really want to run a startup (with on of my great pre-developed ideas) in a somehow coordinated way and get a five percent stake in the company or something. Is there a good place for that (other than putting it on Hackster)?
I met people with great ideas, ones with great skillsets, ones with great management and leadership skills, and you just can have all those things vary over time in your life.
The question is, but also for the classic startup, how stable and dedicated would such a construct be. The need for fame, money or just joy of development also varies over time, so I would guess there should be a way to bring those interest together into a working construct without necessarily judging up front that this is not the real deal. Lots of CXXs are just employees in a company they did not found themselves after all. Still they receive shares of their company. So why not start with that as the base right away.
I met people with great ideas, ones with great skillsets, ones with great management and leadership skills, and you just can have all those things vary over time in your life.
The question is, but also for the classic startup, how stable and dedicated would such a construct be. The need for fame, money or just joy of development also varies over time, so I would guess there should be a way to bring those interest together into a working construct without necessarily judging up front that this is not the real deal. Lots of CXXs are just employees in a company they did not found themselves after all. Still they receive shares of their company. So why not start with that as the base right away.
I've heard it works and it has caused companies to form and get funded.
I signed up like 1 week ago and I'm a 2nd time founder. It depends on your expectations and how you configure it is my read. For me, even though I'm technical, I'm mostly looking for other technical founders. Other than that, the thing I mainly want to feel when I read a profile is a sense of "oh this person would be fun to jam on ideas with" and in addition, "yea I think they got the same level of hustle/urgency as I do." Concurrently, I want to get a sense of the person's motivations - are they all about the $$, I'm a pass usually in that scenario. I just want to build something people love.
I think I've already seen a few people who match that criteria.
Aside: kinda worried about how many people are looking to start an "ai startup" rather than solve a problem which might involve AI.
I signed up like 1 week ago and I'm a 2nd time founder. It depends on your expectations and how you configure it is my read. For me, even though I'm technical, I'm mostly looking for other technical founders. Other than that, the thing I mainly want to feel when I read a profile is a sense of "oh this person would be fun to jam on ideas with" and in addition, "yea I think they got the same level of hustle/urgency as I do." Concurrently, I want to get a sense of the person's motivations - are they all about the $$, I'm a pass usually in that scenario. I just want to build something people love.
I think I've already seen a few people who match that criteria.
Aside: kinda worried about how many people are looking to start an "ai startup" rather than solve a problem which might involve AI.
> kinda worried about how many people are looking to start an "ai startup" rather than solve a problem which might involve AI
My issue is that I am working on a project (I wouldn't call it a startup exactly) which does directly involve AI, so I attract attention from the exact types of people you mentioned, fair weather fans. If you have crypto in your profile and are now interested in AI, that tells me all I need to know.
I've been able to scare most of them away by not having a functioning landing page and directing them to a repo instead. Since I am looking for another technical person this has been a great filter.
My issue is that I am working on a project (I wouldn't call it a startup exactly) which does directly involve AI, so I attract attention from the exact types of people you mentioned, fair weather fans. If you have crypto in your profile and are now interested in AI, that tells me all I need to know.
I've been able to scare most of them away by not having a functioning landing page and directing them to a repo instead. Since I am looking for another technical person this has been a great filter.
> and it has caused companies to form and get funded
I am far more interested in what percentage fail because of a breakdown in the founder relationship.
It's easy to start a company and get funded, when you have a great team. It's very difficult to maintain that relationship for a decade or more.
I am far more interested in what percentage fail because of a breakdown in the founder relationship.
It's easy to start a company and get funded, when you have a great team. It's very difficult to maintain that relationship for a decade or more.
Separating signal from noise is going to be interesting here. Startups founded by friends, former co-workers or network all fail. Exiting isn't guaranteed, nor is product market fit or any amount of success. Most startups fail.
Yes it will be cool when we can see stats like "co-founder matching has created X startups, and you're Y% more likely to succeed." Those stats take time to reach significance. For now, it's OK for it to ride on vision + early indicators like "# of startups founded".
Yes it will be cool when we can see stats like "co-founder matching has created X startups, and you're Y% more likely to succeed." Those stats take time to reach significance. For now, it's OK for it to ride on vision + early indicators like "# of startups founded".
> I am far more interested in what percentage fail because of a breakdown in the founder relationship.
In my experience this happens far more often than issues with tech, but less frequently than running out of cash due to failure in product market fit for pure software plays.
Hardware companies tend to be rough for the founders, unless they are extremely savvy at raising funds.
The longer a start-up remains in the start-up phase the bigger the chance for co-founder conflicts due to differences in expectations and changing life circumstances.
In my experience this happens far more often than issues with tech, but less frequently than running out of cash due to failure in product market fit for pure software plays.
Hardware companies tend to be rough for the founders, unless they are extremely savvy at raising funds.
The longer a start-up remains in the start-up phase the bigger the chance for co-founder conflicts due to differences in expectations and changing life circumstances.
[deleted]
Such threads exist, but users don't upvote them
"Ask HN: What Are You Working On? (Feb 2023)" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34613562)
"Ask HN: Who is looking for a co-founder?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34817765)
"Ask HN: Co-Founder? Seeking Co-Founder?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34629357)
"Ask HN: What Are You Working On? (Feb 2023)" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34613562)
"Ask HN: Who is looking for a co-founder?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34817765)
"Ask HN: Co-Founder? Seeking Co-Founder?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34629357)
They apply to a small subset, so they'd have to be artificially inflated.
I think “what are you working on” is pretty much the widest possible thread where you can find a cofounder.
Just do what Brian Armstrong did. It seemed to work out pretty well for him.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3754664
Incredible. Looks like he finally found his co-founder on Reddit[0] though. Both billionaires now.
[0] https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/how-coinbases-founder-turne...
[0] https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/how-coinbases-founder-turne...
Now that's a gem. Thanks for the share.
interesting, he was 31 at the time, bitcoin did not get outlawed by the US government and he got to sell shares of his new company after a direct listing at a $100bn valuation for a little while hm.
does look like any other pie in the sky idea.
does look like any other pie in the sky idea.
Is your title, "YC co-founder matching is bad", saying that https://www.ycombinator.com/cofounder-matching is bad? Or is it meant as a general complaint about finding a co-founder for YC?
If you've had a bad experience with YC's co-founder matching platform, I'd love to hear why you think it's bad. I haven't used it, but I've heard OK things about it from folks who have.
If you're suggesting that HN should do something else, in addition to—or instead of—YC co-founder matching, what would this accomplish that the co-founder matching platform isn't currently?
If you've had a bad experience with YC's co-founder matching platform, I'd love to hear why you think it's bad. I haven't used it, but I've heard OK things about it from folks who have.
If you're suggesting that HN should do something else, in addition to—or instead of—YC co-founder matching, what would this accomplish that the co-founder matching platform isn't currently?
The crux of the issue is that YC funnels its rejects into "YC Startup School" which gets the associated marketing for "YC Co-Founder Matching". Beyond a basic form, there isn't really much (if any) consideration for matching. I did it and noticed that there were three types of users on the platform:
- Those who had been rejected by YC and funneled into Startup School w/co-founder matching. Not sure what the intent of this was...a bunch of people with their rejected startups all mushed in together?
- Those who never applied, but were under the impression that doing YC Startup School or co-founder matching somehow would increase their odds of getting into YC. Everyone from this group thought of it as some type of admissions process to YC.
- Outright scams and people who had blank LinkedIn profiles and 0 experience (tells me that there is no or very little quality control on who is accepted to the matching)
Everyone I met from the first two groups already had their own startup going and wanted me to join, and also said everyone they talked to had their own startups and were trying to recruit from within the same pool.
I met some interesting people through the process but overall it was ineffective. I would think a more focused search using traditional tools and platforms (LinkedIn, etc) and marketing would be a lot more effective.
- Those who had been rejected by YC and funneled into Startup School w/co-founder matching. Not sure what the intent of this was...a bunch of people with their rejected startups all mushed in together?
- Those who never applied, but were under the impression that doing YC Startup School or co-founder matching somehow would increase their odds of getting into YC. Everyone from this group thought of it as some type of admissions process to YC.
- Outright scams and people who had blank LinkedIn profiles and 0 experience (tells me that there is no or very little quality control on who is accepted to the matching)
Everyone I met from the first two groups already had their own startup going and wanted me to join, and also said everyone they talked to had their own startups and were trying to recruit from within the same pool.
I met some interesting people through the process but overall it was ineffective. I would think a more focused search using traditional tools and platforms (LinkedIn, etc) and marketing would be a lot more effective.
Cofounder matching is a market for lemons, much like online dating. The best prospects are either never on the open market, or get snapped up very quickly. So it's always a problem of sorting through many low-quality options to find diamonds in the rough (and if you can find one, upgrading a rough diamond to a shiny diamond is still a nontrivial process). Point being, cofounder matching is inherently a frustrating grind.
This reminds me of the old joke: an economist is walking down the street with a friend, and the friend says, "Look! There's a $20 bill on the ground!" The economist replies, "Nah, if there were, somebody would've picked it up already,"
The real world is messy. There are many reasons why a suitable cofounder might be found through a matching service, or a life partner, or even just a fun date.
YCombinator was founded in part on the notion that there existed quality technical founders that were being excluded from traditional venture capital networks.
The real world is messy. There are many reasons why a suitable cofounder might be found through a matching service, or a life partner, or even just a fun date.
YCombinator was founded in part on the notion that there existed quality technical founders that were being excluded from traditional venture capital networks.
A friend of mine once found a $100 bill on the street, at night on a city street near restaurants and bars, which makes me wonder if $100 bills are more likely to be found than $20 bills. Or maybe people under report finding $20 bills since it isn't as memorable an experience.
To be fair, I've met plenty of idea guys in real life. I can't imagine the internet somehow being worse.
It's always ' I want Multi billion dollar company X combined with multi billion dollar company Z. Build this for me in exchange for 2.5% equity vested over 5 years.'
Then if you do waste a weekend on a POC you'll hear it doesn't match their vision. You don't even get a thank you from these jerks.
TBH I've given up on starting a tech company completely, I work a 9-5 and then make small games afterwards.
It's always ' I want Multi billion dollar company X combined with multi billion dollar company Z. Build this for me in exchange for 2.5% equity vested over 5 years.'
Then if you do waste a weekend on a POC you'll hear it doesn't match their vision. You don't even get a thank you from these jerks.
TBH I've given up on starting a tech company completely, I work a 9-5 and then make small games afterwards.
> It's always ' I want Multi billion dollar company X combined with multi billion dollar company Z. Build this for me in exchange for 2.5% equity vested over 5 years.'
Those are the generous ones.
If you're a tech person and you 'join as employee #1' then you have just decreased your chances for a reasonable payday by about 90%. So make sure that salary is a substantial one, or negotiate for double digits stock. Otherwise: better to be a founder. Same risks, more control, better payday if it works out.
Those are the generous ones.
If you're a tech person and you 'join as employee #1' then you have just decreased your chances for a reasonable payday by about 90%. So make sure that salary is a substantial one, or negotiate for double digits stock. Otherwise: better to be a founder. Same risks, more control, better payday if it works out.
Oh the idiots I was talking to didn't want to actually pay me any money.
It's just equity in whatever far off pipedream they have.
It's just equity in whatever far off pipedream they have.
That's borderline abusive.
Make the POC your business, call yourself a market-fit engineer and "yes, right away" all the way to early retirement.
I think this is what many technical serial-founders do essentially.
Jesus Christ. This is such an amazing idea.
I'm willing to offer lagniappe 2.5% equity vested over 5 years if they build this for me. Which reminds me of something I read once on the internet, paraphrased ... "build the thing that you want or be forced to build the thing that somebody else wants"
I mean you could always disappear to somewhere with nicer weather and run away with their idea...
Every time I've been given an annoying "you do all the work" offer like this I've entertained the thought. I'm surprised you don't hear about it happening more often to be honest.
Every time I've been given an annoying "you do all the work" offer like this I've entertained the thought. I'm surprised you don't hear about it happening more often to be honest.
Because someone else's idea is always worse than your idea.
The only ideas I considered stealing were ideas I had previously (or close to that).
There is an upside, you can talk about your idea freely, chances of theft are low.
The only ideas I considered stealing were ideas I had previously (or close to that).
There is an upside, you can talk about your idea freely, chances of theft are low.
I disagree about online dating. Increasingly, my peers who end up in long term relationships or married have found each other on dating apps. Dating only coworkers and friends gets boring and limiting.
>> Dating only coworkers and friends gets boring and limiting.
It's a network problem; this is where you start but not necessarily end.
It's a network problem; this is where you start but not necessarily end.
Read the entire comment you are responding to.
I did, and I strongly disagree that online dating is a market for lemons.
Your friends got snapped up leaving the lemons behind
they didn't specify if it they were "snapped up" (presuming this means rapidly) , or if it was a "grind"
Assuming it's a man and woman, and average experiences the guy likely went through 100s-1000s of profiles to match with her, and she likely in the high 10s to low 100s.
Assuming it's a man and woman, and average experiences the guy likely went through 100s-1000s of profiles to match with her, and she likely in the high 10s to low 100s.
You're not supposed to make comments like this on here because usually what ends up happening is that they did read the full comment and that you disagree with their interpretation of it, but then the discourse grinds to a halt because the discussion becomes about reading.
The reason you disagree FWIW is that you believes 'snapped up quickly' means near-instantaneous, whereas they see it as more of 'with the right strategy you can be the snapper'
The reason you disagree FWIW is that you believes 'snapped up quickly' means near-instantaneous, whereas they see it as more of 'with the right strategy you can be the snapper'
I pointed to this in another thread, but:
"for some reason, a lot of people treat choosing their cofounder with even less importance than hiring. Don't do this! This is one of the most important decisions you make in the life of your startup and you need to treat it as such.
And for some reason, students are really bad at this. They just pick someone. They're like, I want to start a business and you want to start a business, let's start a startup together. There are these cofounder dating things where you're like, Hey I'm looking for a cofounder, we don't really know each other, let's start a company. And this is like, crazy. You would never hire someone like this and yet people are willing to choose their business partners this way. It's really really bad. And choosing a random random cofounder, or choosing someone you don't have a long history with, choosing someone you're not friends with, so when things are really going wrong, you have this sort of past history to bind you together, usually ends up in disaster.
We had one YC batch in which nine out of about seventy-five companies added on a new cofounder between when we interviewed the companies and when they started, and all nine of those teams fell apart within the next year. The track record for companies where the cofounders don't know each other is really bad."
from https://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec02/
"for some reason, a lot of people treat choosing their cofounder with even less importance than hiring. Don't do this! This is one of the most important decisions you make in the life of your startup and you need to treat it as such.
And for some reason, students are really bad at this. They just pick someone. They're like, I want to start a business and you want to start a business, let's start a startup together. There are these cofounder dating things where you're like, Hey I'm looking for a cofounder, we don't really know each other, let's start a company. And this is like, crazy. You would never hire someone like this and yet people are willing to choose their business partners this way. It's really really bad. And choosing a random random cofounder, or choosing someone you don't have a long history with, choosing someone you're not friends with, so when things are really going wrong, you have this sort of past history to bind you together, usually ends up in disaster.
We had one YC batch in which nine out of about seventy-five companies added on a new cofounder between when we interviewed the companies and when they started, and all nine of those teams fell apart within the next year. The track record for companies where the cofounders don't know each other is really bad."
from https://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec02/
My experience with Tinder does not match what you describe as "lemons". I'm an average looking guy at best. To be fair, I did hack the process a bit. I definitely do not have an average strategy ;-)
With that said, I did notice that Tinder in the US is just utter garbage, even with my strategy. The best places so far have all been in Europe (only tested the US a bit and some European countries).
With that said, I did notice that Tinder in the US is just utter garbage, even with my strategy. The best places so far have all been in Europe (only tested the US a bit and some European countries).
Request for startup: Tinder in the US that isn't utter garbage. Maybe you can find a cofounder on this platform :)
Aren’t there other dating apps that help?
> much like online dating
Interesting that you just called about 40% of the <50yrs old population "lemons"
Interesting that you just called about 40% of the <50yrs old population "lemons"
Used cars are a market for lemons. Maybe less so these days as they are more
mechanically reliable.
But dating and cofounding isn’t. People with nothing wrong with them break up, become single, appear on dating sites.
People who are great cofounders may decide to work in great jobs first.
But dating and cofounding isn’t. People with nothing wrong with them break up, become single, appear on dating sites.
People who are great cofounders may decide to work in great jobs first.
Wouldnt be surprised to find a bunch of "idea guys" looking for a programmer to implement their idea, meanwhile they "sell" to clients.
As an ideas guy that can program, I super value people that want to sell stuff.
But it's also like dating in that a successful outcome is worth exponentially more than the time it takes to read a few dozen profiles.
Is there a place to match with microfounder types? I’d love to build a business but I don’t want to build a billion dollar business. I also have no plans to quit my day job anytime soon.
I don’t really know what the best idea is and need someone who can brainstorm the right idea and then keep me grounded on it.
I can build MVPs and launch. I lean toward absurdly simple, launched too early prototypes. I’m a web developer with 25 years of professional experience. These days I’m a director, mostly managing other devs, but I still love to get my hands dirty.
Anyway, I always thought the YC stuff was for people with bigger ambitions than mine. I have tried YC founder school, which is cool.
Reach out if you wanna chat.
I don’t really know what the best idea is and need someone who can brainstorm the right idea and then keep me grounded on it.
I can build MVPs and launch. I lean toward absurdly simple, launched too early prototypes. I’m a web developer with 25 years of professional experience. These days I’m a director, mostly managing other devs, but I still love to get my hands dirty.
Anyway, I always thought the YC stuff was for people with bigger ambitions than mine. I have tried YC founder school, which is cool.
Reach out if you wanna chat.
The best micro-founder partnerships are where both people have some knowledge of the industry they want to build a product in. But one of them is an engineer and the other is into sales.
I also believe that and it's something I'm looking for in general (as a technical person), even if not actively at the moment.
There's always the trope about the "ideas guy" out there that wants someone to build them the tech for free or for equity. So far I have yet to meet such a person, but if the idea is good and interesting I'd be more than willing to give it a shot.
There's always the trope about the "ideas guy" out there that wants someone to build them the tech for free or for equity. So far I have yet to meet such a person, but if the idea is good and interesting I'd be more than willing to give it a shot.
This might be one of those "MBA grads always think of startups that would help MBA grads" things but it might be fun to dip your toe in the water with a website that collects microbusiness ideas that people don't want to do, but might like to see
I'm a doctor finishing up residency soon. I'm thinking of going into full-time coding rather than practice. I may do a few shifts here and there for money/stay afloat, but otherwise looking to transition. Would be interested in chatting with you/and anyone else also going through something similar, maybe learning together, sharing the journey!
Might have a hard time, finding that, in this venue.
Most VCs are betting for The Big One, and microstartups are probably not gonna deliver that.
I would be a "microstartup" kind of guy. I hang around here for the community, not the opportunity.
Most VCs are betting for The Big One, and microstartups are probably not gonna deliver that.
I would be a "microstartup" kind of guy. I hang around here for the community, not the opportunity.
Rather than chase the VC money, why not just focus on first building a profitable business and product that people want?
That would be my approach, but this is a VC site. I suspect most folks here, are looking for big breaks, and sweet VC funding.
> That would be my approach
Is there a place for such like-minded individuals? Haha.
I'm lean more pragmatic; there are only so many billion dollar ideas. In the post ZIRP era, I think that being able to demonstrate a viable business model might (hopefully) carry more weight.
Is there a place for such like-minded individuals? Haha.
I'm lean more pragmatic; there are only so many billion dollar ideas. In the post ZIRP era, I think that being able to demonstrate a viable business model might (hopefully) carry more weight.
So I’ve matched with 2 cofounders on there. And while I think finding a good cofounder is inherently hard, I’d say it’s the best platform that I’ve seen. It’s similar to relationship dating I guess.
One of the questions that I would add though, is whether the founder is married to a solution or is in search of a problem. First co-founder I worked with was great overall but he was married to a solution, that after talking to prospective users, I realized nobody really wanted.
One of the questions that I would add though, is whether the founder is married to a solution or is in search of a problem. First co-founder I worked with was great overall but he was married to a solution, that after talking to prospective users, I realized nobody really wanted.
I'm curious why the assertion that YC co-founding matching is bad?
Anecdotally, I used it, matched with a co-founder, and now the business is doing well. I spent nearly a decade looking for the right person, and with YC matching found them in a couple of months.
Anecdotally, I used it, matched with a co-founder, and now the business is doing well. I spent nearly a decade looking for the right person, and with YC matching found them in a couple of months.
I tried the YC founder matching thing several years ago. It was terrible. It asked all sorts of irrelevant questions and then used the answers to disqualify me from the service.
They overthought the problem. All thats needed is a list of people who are looking to connect plus their resume and a summary paragraph. Like a dating website basically. To keep it fresh and focused it should require you click a”still looking” email link once a week. Maybe fields for location/are you technical.
It might have changed in recent years but I never went back.
They overthought the problem. All thats needed is a list of people who are looking to connect plus their resume and a summary paragraph. Like a dating website basically. To keep it fresh and focused it should require you click a”still looking” email link once a week. Maybe fields for location/are you technical.
It might have changed in recent years but I never went back.
I'm curious, how did you get disqualified? I've been using the platform and wasn't even aware it was possible to get disqualified.
The questions seemed very fair, though I know they've been iterating on them so it may be different from when you used it.
The questions seemed very fair, though I know they've been iterating on them so it may be different from when you used it.
[deleted]
It's terrible indeed. The dating app style doesn't work + its full of buzzwords (blockchain and etc.).
I found my current co-founder on HackerNews. He is lurking somewhere here. This indeed was along the timeline where YC was introducing the co-founder matching. Startup School already was testing it and I was part of that.
I was matched with quite a few good ones but were on different agendas in life. Two of the ones I know are part of YCombinator now. Quite a lot of them were also pretty shallow and spammy/scammy. But then I think that is part of the deal.
I already had a co-founder (business) and I'm fairly technical. But I needed a hard-core Machine Learning Geospatial person who have meddled with the pigs in the AI mud.
I remembering writing about it more like a job here on Hackernews and we ended up talking about satellites, precision agriculture, climate, and sustainability. After two years, we are still struggling together to building something that we are very proud now and in future, not just for us but for our kids and their friends. :-)
Btw, my prior co-founder got a Government Job in a reputed institute in India. We are no longer co-founders but continue to be friends, hoping that we will something to work together on.
P.S. I'm not actively looking but would love to talk to someone who loves finding ways to curb climate change and is extremely good at sales. I'm getting better at it but far from what I want to be. I want to learn more together and we still have a big chunk of equity reserved for the right person. :-)
I was matched with quite a few good ones but were on different agendas in life. Two of the ones I know are part of YCombinator now. Quite a lot of them were also pretty shallow and spammy/scammy. But then I think that is part of the deal.
I already had a co-founder (business) and I'm fairly technical. But I needed a hard-core Machine Learning Geospatial person who have meddled with the pigs in the AI mud.
I remembering writing about it more like a job here on Hackernews and we ended up talking about satellites, precision agriculture, climate, and sustainability. After two years, we are still struggling together to building something that we are very proud now and in future, not just for us but for our kids and their friends. :-)
Btw, my prior co-founder got a Government Job in a reputed institute in India. We are no longer co-founders but continue to be friends, hoping that we will something to work together on.
P.S. I'm not actively looking but would love to talk to someone who loves finding ways to curb climate change and is extremely good at sales. I'm getting better at it but far from what I want to be. I want to learn more together and we still have a big chunk of equity reserved for the right person. :-)
Excellent insights!
Your network is going to help you with this 10x as much as random matching would. I doubt random matching is even very successful, compared to organically finding a partner.
Ask around, see what people in your network know about folks who are building new things. They may even have ideas about folks who would build something if the right partner were to help them.
Ask around, see what people in your network know about folks who are building new things. They may even have ideas about folks who would build something if the right partner were to help them.
I don't think it's 10x. Your network is likely to be limited. Coworkers, buddies from school, friends of family? When you filter out all the ones with careers/no interest in starting a company, and then the ones you don't want to work with, you think you're left with highly relevant matches?
Like many social or networking platforms especially in startups, you get back what you make of it.
There is a such a spectrum of ideas and approaches that you're unlikely to get a better product out of confining people to any category or stage. Personally I think its a great platform if you put your VC hat on (you're contributing effort rather than capital). If you don't find a the right idea or person to work with then you'll likely learn a lot from seeing what everyone else is doing and how they are thinking (positive or otherwise).
All the big VCs do periodic posts but it takes a bit more work to find the truly novel ideas and projects. With YC co-founder matching, you start with a varied pool of people who have set out to be founders - its up to you what you do with that.
There is a such a spectrum of ideas and approaches that you're unlikely to get a better product out of confining people to any category or stage. Personally I think its a great platform if you put your VC hat on (you're contributing effort rather than capital). If you don't find a the right idea or person to work with then you'll likely learn a lot from seeing what everyone else is doing and how they are thinking (positive or otherwise).
All the big VCs do periodic posts but it takes a bit more work to find the truly novel ideas and projects. With YC co-founder matching, you start with a varied pool of people who have set out to be founders - its up to you what you do with that.
I wish there was a monthly post like this! There should be a monthly project post "Hey, I'm working on X, I need help with Y" or something like that.
Example: I'm not very technical, but I'm very much into the product, operations, and market-fit/research side of things, and have access to funding. I want to join a team where I can grow and learn things, but also do cool shit with cool people. Currently, I'm running a small business as a side-hustle to build a bit of capital, but want to jump back into tech/startups as soon as I can.
I would imagine a monthly post highlighting skills and projects would be great - would be great for people who need something to do, project work, upskilling work for CV building, etc...
I've actually had a few conversations that started from HN posts about what other folks are working on, and they were really enjoyable and I was fortunate to learn interesting things.
Example: I'm not very technical, but I'm very much into the product, operations, and market-fit/research side of things, and have access to funding. I want to join a team where I can grow and learn things, but also do cool shit with cool people. Currently, I'm running a small business as a side-hustle to build a bit of capital, but want to jump back into tech/startups as soon as I can.
I would imagine a monthly post highlighting skills and projects would be great - would be great for people who need something to do, project work, upskilling work for CV building, etc...
I've actually had a few conversations that started from HN posts about what other folks are working on, and they were really enjoyable and I was fortunate to learn interesting things.
You mean like the "Who's hiring?" posts but instead "Who's building and needs co-founder?". I like it.
Exactly
It's a harder problem to solve than you might think. Because the success metric is difficult.
That's an accurate point in my experience.
My suggestion is to prioritize the quality of partners over the specific idea you are working on. Someone capable of moving mountains and chewing glass is a truly rare ally, and there are countless people who pick sexy startup ideas and are incapable of executing at the level that a startup requires. You'll likely pivot anyway, so the idea doesn't matter too much to begin with, but you'll be stuck with someone who's either incredible to work with, or not. Most people aren't cut out for the founder role, you learn this the hard way eventually, and that's ok. Just don't end up stuck for years with someone who's not meant for it.
Unfortunately high potential founders are rare and you have to spend a few months working with someone who looks good on paper to find out if they're one. Takes a lot of time, and unlike a VC you only have one pipe to run experiments with, but that's the nature of the game. And there's a non-trivial chance that you yourself are not exceptional, meaning that it's unlikely you'll end up pairing with someone stellar because they know they can do much better.
Overall a really hard problem, but serendipity still happens regularly in this space, so it's worth giving it a shot, but be prepared for this to possibly take a while. Personal networks and vetted connections are a godsend here if you have access to them.
My suggestion is to prioritize the quality of partners over the specific idea you are working on. Someone capable of moving mountains and chewing glass is a truly rare ally, and there are countless people who pick sexy startup ideas and are incapable of executing at the level that a startup requires. You'll likely pivot anyway, so the idea doesn't matter too much to begin with, but you'll be stuck with someone who's either incredible to work with, or not. Most people aren't cut out for the founder role, you learn this the hard way eventually, and that's ok. Just don't end up stuck for years with someone who's not meant for it.
Unfortunately high potential founders are rare and you have to spend a few months working with someone who looks good on paper to find out if they're one. Takes a lot of time, and unlike a VC you only have one pipe to run experiments with, but that's the nature of the game. And there's a non-trivial chance that you yourself are not exceptional, meaning that it's unlikely you'll end up pairing with someone stellar because they know they can do much better.
Overall a really hard problem, but serendipity still happens regularly in this space, so it's worth giving it a shot, but be prepared for this to possibly take a while. Personal networks and vetted connections are a godsend here if you have access to them.
It would be helpful if the ideas are clustered. Only non-focused founders will spend their time on reading all ideas, which is needed to find matches in specialized areas.
YC could offer hierarchical subreddits for business sectors. It would be possible to collaborate with founders who are attracted to the same topic and it would be possible to offer opportunities to people who want to work in the broader area.
YC could offer hierarchical subreddits for business sectors. It would be possible to collaborate with founders who are attracted to the same topic and it would be possible to offer opportunities to people who want to work in the broader area.
The idea of co-founder matching feels like a dating app for rushing into marriage. It is definitely possible it can work out but it seems like a long shot. If I were going to start a startup today, I'd want to do as much as I could to validate the idea and use that data to persuade some people whom I've had great working relationships with. Whether that's in school or the workplace etc… If you are unable to do that, you're going to have a really hard time recruiting good talent. You also want to know what it's like to have a disagreement with the person you're going to be in kind of a marriage with. Don't have your first fight after marriage.
There's no reason to emphasize "rushing". Lots of people who meet on dating apps end up married. A high percentage don't work out. After they go on a few dates, they move on. Similar dynamic with cofounder matching.
Yeah, but I don't think people finding co-founders on a co-founder matching website generally plan on a _dating_ period. My opinion… yours is valid too but feels like a marriage app more than a dating app to me.
I've met some pretty cool people through YC's co-founder matching tool.
The people I've met helped by making intros inside their network. I've provided similar intros, referrals, and a bit of technical advice.
I don't have any expectation that I'll meet a co-founder, but it's nice to chat with people who really "get it." Most of my friends, family, and former colleagues think I'm batshit for trading a cushy salaried gig for my own startup.
The people I've met helped by making intros inside their network. I've provided similar intros, referrals, and a bit of technical advice.
I don't have any expectation that I'll meet a co-founder, but it's nice to chat with people who really "get it." Most of my friends, family, and former colleagues think I'm batshit for trading a cushy salaried gig for my own startup.
I've thought about this too. I tried YC's co-founder matching, looking for a co-founder for my current company. But it's all new founders (i.e. no experience running or even building a company). It's kind of like Indie Hackers -- it's full of wantrepreneurs (nothing wrong with that!), with very little entrepreneurs.
There's gotta be a better way.
There's gotta be a better way.
Could be fun to try matching with a large language model, using some technique like cross encoders
https://sbert.net/examples/applications/cross-encoder/README...
https://sbert.net/examples/applications/cross-encoder/README...
I'm wondering what everyone thinks.