HN Explorer

Ask HN: How many co-founders is too many?

5 points by crockstar ↗ HN
I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has founded a startup about whether there are occassions in which you would want any more than one other co-founder and whether there is a limit on how many you think are appropriate? I'm not particularly savvy on startup culture but could reasonably justify up to 2-3 other co-founders depending on skillset. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts based on experience!

10 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 34.6 ms ] thread
glimcat
It varies a lot. From what I've seen, two is most common and more than 5-6 is a bit odd. More than about 8-10 is hard for sociological reasons.

How well the team integrates and works together and whether or not you have adequate skill coverage is more important than the exact number.

crockstar
So having 4 total (3 others) wouldn't be out of the question if all brought different skills to the table? Thanks for your thoughts, would love to get some other opinions too!
glimcat
For reference:

http://ycombinator.com/apply.html

"The ideal company would have two or three founders. We'll consider those with four or five. We're reluctant to accept one-person companies, though we have funded a couple."

If there's a strong justification, there's no reason not to have four cofounders. If it's just because that many people wanted to collaborate, you might want to take a hard look about who is going to commit to contribute what. To go with a common illustration, founding means "you're the pig" (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Chicken_a...).

[dead] techn_in
yeah I agree that 2-3 seems to be the magic number. anything past four is starting to get crowded.
fezzl
I wouldn't go more than 2. 1 is optimum to start out with, IMO.
jarrettcoggin
What is your basis? Why do you believe that 1 is optimum?
glimcat
If you have an idea you're interested in working on for several years of your life, it makes sense to start researching it and proofing the concept ASAP.
isakib
Yes, 2 is the best choice. I have recent experiences. We have the idea (3 founders), we started our works but suddenly we are having face some problem. Two is free and one is busy with something else -- it started happening frequently. Two are technically skilled and one is business guy. But over our before to born our startups, we had to close everything. Because, it's not the way. Also, see the history, the million dollar companies like Google, Yahoo, HP and so on companies. Also, checkout youtube.com (3 founders) there were communication/ jawad has time issues) -- though it was million dollar company, just becuase of the dedication of two others founders :). It doesn't happen all the time.
[dead] inmymind
What do you mean by co-founders? There is a common misconception that co-founders implies an equal equity stake. This is not usually the case and is oftentimes sub-optimal / problematic. Also, in cases where different classes of stock exist (F stock), co-founder could imply F stock and would have a very different implication.

An equal equity split between 2 people is an often advised against situation. Personally, it's worked for me, thus far. However, in my case, I'm working with someone I've known for more than 10 years, we have complimentary skill sets, we decided we wanted to work together from day one...and other sound justifications rational people would need to ensure the fact that no ranking decision maker wouldn't be an issue. That being said, this type of arrangement often blows up & it gets ugly.

I'd offer this as a better definition of a co-founder. One who works on a startup before any money is raised and is in it for the long haul (they have a vesting equity stake). This doesn't imply equal equity.

Using the latter definition, a common practice that has worked for several entrepreneurs goes as follows. Someone has an idea and starts working on it. They move it along enough to entice another person, whom can accelerate some aspect of the product significantly (given the stage) and is compelled the product/vision enough to join the team. This person is given some % of equity (typically 15-30%) and is now a co-founder. As the product continues to move along & theoretically increase in value, people brought in to contribute (before salary can be paid) get progressively smaller and smaller stakes. The company can afford to pay salaries, the next filled position is typically considered the 1st hire.

The earlier you are, the more decisions you have to make to figure out your projects place in the world. The larger the group, the more time is allocated to decision making and not to doing. That's really bad.

Also note, being the ultimate decision maker at an early startup sucks: It's hard on you, time consuming, stressful, expensive (startup & opp cost), everyone involved should realize your leading them aboard the Titanic and the goal post keeps moving. As the first founder, your job is to make sure that you bring on the right type of people and you won't know who that is at the get go. But, the startup world is filled with the wrong type of people that want to get in early and be a co-founder. Those type of people will judge everything you do as CEO (especially when you don't do what they think you should do), kill morale and ultimately, make getting a startup off the ground much harder than it already is.

So, how many co-founders is too many?

too many > smallest number needed

Good luck!

VicT11
In my experience (which isn't a ton), I really enjoyed having 3 person co-founding team. As far as decision making it helps to have that number of people to help settle debates. Strictly on that level it was a positive as long as there is a level of cooperation and dedication with everyone.