[sgt101]

Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used.

On the other hand are you sure that you are reasoning correctly? Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?

What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?

[lazyjones]

> Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used.

So what is your conclusion from this? That 60 hours are too much? Or is it OK to work 60 hours (i.e. more than 40)? Why bring it up if your example basically confirms that my expectations aren't unreasonable?

> Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?

Yes. And I know a couple more.

> What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?

15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.

[sgt101]

>15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.

Oh crumbs - sounds like a disaster! Why were you invested? Didn't the managing board raise some red flags and seek liquidation early?