[kbuchanan]

Here's a more cynical possibility: What if casting about for brilliant startup ideas is actually a signal that you are unlikely to be a founder, by DNA.

In my experience, founders simply can't help themselves from starting things, regardless of how ridiculous (or great) their ideas are. There are obvious exceptions to this (for example, I wouldn't include people who inherit businesses, who have a lot of startup capital, in this founder pool).

[mlevental]

this is so dumb. I'm a founder. I was chosen to be the technical co-founder of a company where the space had been selected and problem had been identified. before that I wanted to start something but because I'm not asinine nor had any useful domain experience I didn't have any notions of valuable problems to solve. i have all of the makings of a founder (work ethic, risk tolerant, creativity, people skills, etc.) and we're alive because I do. are you really going to argue because I didn't just start another Shopify clone for dogs and then pivot 10 times that I don't have founder DNA?

edit: i'm probably getting downvoted because i come off as a braggart. maybe but that was not my intention - i just meant that there are plenty of counter-examples to this claim that if you don't go out and start from scratch impulsively then you're not genetically predisposed to being a founder.

[kbuchanan]

You make a great point that there's a lot more to being a founder than simply pulling the trigger on a business license. Props for making it work in your bidness.

[mwseibel]

This is possible.