[adennis4]

Well, first - what you described isn't a chicken and egg problem..it doesn't actually relate to this situation at all. Those are pros and cons of having a co-founder.

There are a ton of reasons why a co-founder is a pain. However, the positives far outweigh any negatives...the stage of the company doesn't matter. Disagreements are valuable. The workload is simply unmanageable on your own. The road to success / failure can get really lonely without a co-founder.

Building a successful company is unlikely. Building one without a co-founder...odds just got worse.

[mkramlich]

> The workload is simply unmanageable on your own.

Disagree. You have the power to choose what the workload is as a sole founder/bootstrap. You choose the feature set. You choose what's in the next iteration. You choose how fast or slow to go. You choose your cash burn, if any. You choose how many hours to put in. You choose.... I could go on but I think you see the pattern. Anyone telling you these choices don't exist has made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

[philmcc]

> However, the positives far outweigh any negatives.

I'm solo-founding my own start-up right now, and I find that I agree with this statement as a general rule, but I find that it is advice that should be given based on personality type.

That said, I think there are ways to minimize the negatives by "out-sourcing" some of the co-founder responsibilities.

A. Motivation

I have a couple of friends who are just curious about the start-up process. They've been involved from day one, if only passively, and are just curious about what I'm building so it gives me someone to share my latest modification/addition with. That way I don't feel like I'm building in a vacuum.

B. Work Sharing

This is, for me, the hardest part of being a solo-founder -- the vague feeling that if I don't do something, it's never ever going to get done. It gets to be an amazing burden. Lately I've taken to using outsourcing sites (like, oDesk) and just assigning small relatively unimportant tasks. ("Design a confirmation email", "Turn this data into a chart using two or three libraries"). It's easy to say "Well I could just do that", but then spending $30-$50 to just not have to worry about it, gives you the feeling of stuff getting done with out you.

C. Idea Evaluation

You can still talk to your friends/peers about any given aspect of your idea, and its execution, and even if they haven't been involved in the ins and outs, it doesn't mean their input is useless. Sometimes, I would imagine, you get more honest feedback from someone who doesn't have a financial stake in what happens. It removes much of the emotional component of an argument and allows you to just talk about it intellectually/theoretically. I find that I'm actually more receptive to feedback when I don't feel any sense of obligation to hear that person out.

D. Accountability

Do what smokers do. Tell your three closest friends that "by this weekend, I'll have [x] working."

Anyway, just rambling. Of course if I had a co-founder they might tell me to stop commenting on HN and get back to work, so maybe I'm invalidating my point as I go.

[tferris]

You're right, it's not chicken and egg, it's choosing between pest and cholera, I'll edit. Thanks

In principle I agree with you on all your points but do not underestimate deadlocking situations in later stages. They will come, the overall situation will change a lot after time passed and thus the relation between the co-founders. And regarding successful single-founder companies: there are a lot, there just not welcome by VCs due to several reasons.