[atleastoptimal]

Imo to really succeed as a founder you need either

1. 99.9th percentile technical brilliance

2. 99.9th percentile mixture of relentlessness and charm/natural likability due to charisma, attractiveness, etc

3. 99.9th percentile luck and alignment of the stars of marker forces and technological progress in your favor

Imo if you know you're not a special, magical person by the first two metrics, watching how things change/emerge will give you some edge on the third.

[wizerdrobe]

I’ll add on to this - I’ve worked closely with a few folks I consider to be in that brilliant mix of charisma, business sense, and technical competency.

I’ve watched them found rock-solid companies and build great teams (I’ve worked on them)… and then for some reason several times in a VC-backed Boards like to bring in their own guys and push out the actual founders.

In short, I’ve watched VC rob my friends of their joy and in some cases cheat them of their blood, sweat, and equity. Good luck exercising those options on a non-IPO firm when you’re scrambling to find a new job to keep the mortgage current.

I’m really soured in the whole “start a startup.” There’s so much chicanery going on in the business world that it’s just sickening to see.

[satvikpendem]

There's a solution to that: don't take venture capital. Start a micro-SaaS that'll cashflow 10k a month consistently, then you can quit your job and grow that. Grow it to maybe a million a year, sell for a 3 to 5x multiple, then retire (or start something new).

[takinola]

I don't think the empirical evidence supports this assertion. I don't think successful founders are necessarily that much of an outlier in terms of technical or emotional capabilities. Sure, those help and I am sure there are tons of examples of founders that rank crazy high on these scales.

However, I suspect it is a lot simpler (in concept not execution) than most of us think. Success probably is a combination of ability (you must be able to actually do the work), persistence (to push through when it is hard going), insight (to be able to determine where to apply the previous two skills) and a healthy dose of luck (never hurts).

[sircastor]

I’m of the opinion that these things are true if you’re going to be the next breakout success story - the unicorn of a given field.

But I think the tech industry trains us to think that that’s the only success. But there are lots of startups that make a product, are cash-flow positive, and have reasonable growth. And I think this version of success does not require the tremendously narrow odds that you’re suggesting.

[benj111]

I kind of disagree. 1s aren't generally the type to start their own business, 2s are so you aren't going to be competing on technical merits.

Yes 3 is always valid. But I don't think you need to be the best individual at anything to 'succeed'

Although your use of 'founder' suggests a go big or go home mentality. There's nothing wrong with finding a niche.

[avery17]

If your definition of success is founding the next OpenAi and making a trillion dollars overnight then sure. If youre just looking to start a modest company that supports you and a few others reasonably comfortably then you definitely dont need any of that.

[scarface_74]

You forgot money to start your business.