[shadowmatter]

> I think my co-founders are idiots, that they fouled up their side of the deal, but I feel as though I've invested too much time and energy to bail now.

You've got to let go of this attitude. If you cling to it, then you will never leave, even if your co-founders are idiots and the business is a failure. What you need to do is quit as soon as possible. Only then can you start on a better endeavor and improve your quality of life.

I once heard someone say, "Give up on crap." It may sound juvenile, and it goes against the rosy, feel-good "Never give up" pep talks that we're used to and almost expect to hear. But I've found it to be a much better guide in life decisions. Go with it.

[djbender]

> I feel as though I've invested too much time and energy to bail now.

Look up Sunk Cost Fallacy.

Also this related episode of Freakonomics is great: http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/new-freakonomics-radi...

[Cogito]

It's easy to presume that sunk costs should have no weight when considering the relative value of different options.

For many endeavours a certain amount of investment is required before returns are seen - investments in time and money in particular. For this reason there is almost always a cost to be considered switching between endeavours.

So, while I agree that throwing good money after bad is a silly thing to do, the consideration should be how much more investment is needed to make this endeavour profitable vs how much some other endeavour will take to become profitable AND how much it will cost to switch.

You shouldn't weight how much has already been spent in this consideration, however you have to understand the impact existing investment has had on the road to profitability.

Time and money already spent is a crude metric that lends itself to the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but considering the metric is not the same thing as falling victim to the fallacy.

[EDIT] The following comment explains this really well through an example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5722032

[raylu]

I think you misunderstand sunk cost. Sunk cost basically just says to always employ a purely-forward-looking strategy when evaluating costs and benefits.

> vs how much some other endeavour will take to become profitable AND how much it will cost to switch.

Wait, what are these two costs? Aren't they the same? Where did the cost of switching come from?

[Cogito]

> I think you misunderstand sunk cost. Sunk cost basically just says to always employ a purely-forward-looking strategy when evaluating costs and benefits

I don't think I misunderstand sunk cost, but perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough.

I agree that you need to be forward looking, but whilst looking forward it can be important to consider existing investment. Existing investment is not ALWAYS worth nothing, so its value needs to be accounted for. Existing investment is also a metric that, whilst lending itself to entwining one in the Sunk Cost Fallacy, is an important part of answering the question "how much more investment is needed?"

The sunk cost fallacy applies in a situation where previous investment has been lost. The typical example is in gambling, where each spin of the wheel is independent of how much you have already lost on the table. When in a startup, however, previous investment is not necessarily lost, so switching to a new one is (typically) not the same as continuing one you have already invested in.

>> vs how much some other endeavour will take to become profitable AND how much it will cost to switch.

> Wait, what are these two costs? Aren't they the same? Where did the cost of switching come from?

The cost of switching is a way of characterising things like lost earnings and payouts that are not directly related to starting a new endeavour. They are typically, though not always, constant regardless of the new endeavour being considered, and so it makes sense to keep them separate.

Examples of switching costs:

* paying out a phone contract;

* loss of long service benefits (if someone is close to receiving long service benefits they will typically wait to receive them before switching jobs);

* non-compete clauses.

[pyre]

  | For many endeavours a certain amount of
  | investment is required before returns are seen

Compulsive gamblers tell themselves the same things. What is really needed is a objective view of the situation.

[Cogito]

Are you disagreeing that investment is often needed in order to gain profit?

I definitely did not advocate gambling money away, but rather that "an objective view of the situation" requires you "to understand the impact existing investment has had on the road to profitability."

In a follow up to another comment in this thread, I specifically call out the difference between gambling, where (usually) any investment so far has no impact on future earnings; and investing (in particular investing in startups), where the time and money invested so far can have an impact on future earnings.

To be concrete, the next spin of the roulette table has no correlation to the amount of money you won or lost on the previous spin, but your chance of selling an app on the app store in the next month is directly correlated to how much of the app has been written already.

[taigeair]

But if you think about it, you're probably going to need to work with them for a long while if you stay. So it's not the best idea to stay any longer if you don't respect your team.

[shortstuffsushi]

This, to me, is most valid point. Even if the company does start putting cash in your wallet, if you don't believe in it, or the people leading it, or their business model, you're not going to be happy.

[dkersten]

"Winners know which battles to fight and which to retreat from"

[Periodic]

I left a start up despite dumping countless hours into it. I just didn't see it really going anywhere because our business side just wasn't well fleshed out and I knew I'd never really have the control I wanted based on the personality of the other founder.

A year later he's still at it and has made no progress. I gave up my founder's share for a more modest share. If the company ever goes anywhere I'll take my paycheck, but at this point I just consider that time to be a financial loss.

There are many ways to leave a company and still maintain the possibility for a payout for your work if it ever comes to that. If they're the types that would try to screw you over when you leave, then you probably should have left a while ago.

[hal9k]

Two idiots and a programmer don't build great companies.

You might be able to convince them to pay you out for your share of the equity.

[ardiyu07]

I agree with you. Plus we don't know the real story or from the other (the co-fos) points of view, it's hard to decide who are the real idiots, or to put it softly, who are the real masterminds. Especially being a founder, being able to work with any kinds of people is a must.

[dclowd9901]

Also, listen to The Upside of Quitting on the Freakonomics podcast.

[jessaustin]

There's only one co-founder you can't get rid of. I've tried! (I haven't tried the obvious method, if only because it isn't obviously effective for this problem.)