HN Explorer

Struggling to understand the value of non technical cofounders in tech startups

6 points by ldjkfkdsjnv ↗ HN
This might come off poorly, but as a highly technical individual that can do sales, I dont understand non technical cofounders. I'm currently working with someone that I raised money with, and 90% of the work is just technical work. He seems to be doing "CEO" stuff, and has a very credible background, but I'm just confused. There is a real need for our product, and we may succeed, but there is a herculean technical effort to get there. With that, this actually feels a bit like a scam? How do technical cofounders rationalize the work split. We did raise money, and his background helped a bit there, but even then I dont think it was a huge differentiator.

11 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] thread
ftmootnomoat
In a tech/biz duo his role should be to raise money and find clients so you can focus 100% of your time on development. If for you both raising money and finding clients carries very little overhead then the rationale for splitting equity can indeed be harder to justify.
ldjkfkdsjnv
I'm not sure if ego is playing into it, and I dont think he is necessarily "underperforming", but its getting hard to accept the terms of the deal. Even with the money we have raised, I feel as though I am handing over my very hard won software skills to someone for free. Is this rational? Maybe its just this stage of the company that has this dynamic
deanmoriarty
For what is worth, I have seen first hand two instances of the same situation, where one cofounder was heavily technical and it was plainly obviously that the other one, who had an accomplished business pedigree, was not doing much in terms of leveraged activities. In both cases the cofounder got kicked out, via coordinated action/pressure from investor+technical cofounder.
james-revisoai
Value isn't a simple equation - it's often multiplicative.

A co-founder with distribution options allows you to hit the market multiple times (sometimes this is true for investment), greatly increasing the chances of something catching on. Often times, they can save you going the wrong path with the product too.

A co-founder with technical skills can make the first version faster and strategize product work later as compared to other options. Except in the case where you are doing Truly Innovative Technical Work in which case you probably want a pro-team of mostly or all technical leaders with perhaps a CEO-style visionary for PR and some strategy, that however is not a startup so much as a moonshot, a business which operates differently.

These two skills are much more multiplicative than additive for most startups.

Technical people also get unique benefits: they can also opt away from dealing with some stress, people problems, etc - it's a deal a bit like insurance in that sense. And the risk staked by the business size is larger: a technical person whos product does even slightly well can get hired into a management role at another tech startup working on R&D. This is rarely true for CEOs unless they make it big. So the failure/"just about ok" stage that 70% of ideas leave at, is much better a position for CTOs than CEOs.

In your position I would try to launch several projects alone as a technical founder - the value of distribution will be made clear, making you value your co-founder more, or you will succeed - either result is good for you.

paulcole
> We did raise money, and his background helped a bit there, but even then I dont think it was a huge differentiator.

Sounds like you made a mistake by partnering with him? Live and learn, I guess.

ineedasername
Depends on the product. Doing anything targeted to an industry that has “insider” culture? Maybe find a co-founder who is already an insider in that industry. Same goes for highly regulated areas— a co founder who already knows all the ins and outs of those regulations and how to navigate them smoothly could be a huge benefit.

So that may address the broader question, but I don’t know if it will help your particular situation.

muzani
I had a brilliant sales cofounder but ultimately he didn't take an equal share. He was basically a 10x salesman. I worked with a lot of startups and he managed to cover about a month of "customer validation" in a day. But basically I ended up taking product, logistics, & engineering and it wasn't a fair split.

I think we made the mistake of not making him CEO. The CEO always has to be present when pitching to a major investor. So it ended up being me doing the pitching and I never had time to work on the product. The product guy also tends to be the CEO.

We learned from that mistake and he went on to be a CEO of a million dollar startup running on WordPress. Sadly, they focused on sports and didn't do well during covid.

MaxHoppersGhost
Yes you can do sales but are you effective at selling? Anyone can “do” sales but being a good salesperson that you can build a company around is something else. Same goes for other non technical roles. I suspect you are overvaluing your engineering background and are either overplaying your ability to do what your non technical cofounder is doing or undervaluing the work they’re doing.
mannyv
Without money your startup is DOA. Without customers your company is DOA. Can you get customers and money without the other guy? If so, then they other guy is an employee.

The world is littered with good products that didn't sell. But good salespeople can sell and raise millions with no product. And more importantly, they can make people believe. Can you?

faangiq
Actually it’s the opposite. Tech is irrelevant and can easily be outsourced to cheap third worlders. All that matters is selling.
iamflimflam1
What’s the equity split between you. From your comments it sounds like you have less than him?