You know in 20+ years of founding and working at a bunch of different startups and companies ranging from big companies in fly-over country, to team-of-2 bootstrapped 6-figure businesses, and all the way up to super hot pre-IPO unicorns; one thing I've learned is that great people that you gel with and might want to start a company with are everywhere in equal proportions.
Sure, there are probably slightly more of them in Silicon Valley, but also SV is full of wannabes who are playing house, so the signal to noise ratio is actually less. I feel any kind co-founder dating suffers from the exact same thing. YC's name gives it more legitimacy, but that very fact attracts more dedicated wannabes who are just playing house harder.
Ultimately after all these years I keep coming back to Joel Spolsky's idea of working with people who are "smart and get things done". That's it. I am skeptical I will find someone I want to work with on a co-founder dating site, because the people I want to work with are too busy trying to do a thing with the resources available to them versus looking for a longshot silver bullet. There are exceptions of course, but this is just my gut instinct, you might take it with a grain of salt since I waste a lot of time commenting on HN :)
> "people I want to work with are too busy trying to do a thing with the resources available to them versus looking for a longshot silver bullet."
Right on. Most people I'd co-found anything with in a heart beat are too busy with 101 things already. The question isn't who I would want to work with, but how to convince them that this venture is worth dropping everything else in the world for.
I can't quite agree with it. Maybe in the SV it works this way, maybe, just maybe, it does so in the U.S. as a whole too, but the normal belief about the whole software industry here in the Eastern Europe is that it is an industry of bullshit (because most developers have never seen a single project that shipped, and don't know anyone who seen), so smart people would just work for whatever pays best, to escape bullshit as soon as possible (by investing their money elsewhere)... Being smart and getting things done isn't a filter at all i would say.
I have been on the y combinator co-founder portal and so far, it has not been that great. Most people either don't respond or if they do, they are really mostly interested in their own ideas and I know the irony of saying this because I have my own ideas.
I really believe that finding a co-founder is almost impossible to plan but it is more of an accident. Unless you have worked with someone for a while and know their strengths and weaknesses, no site can solve this problem.
Having said this, if you have a great co-founder, you truly are very lucky because I know how lonely it gets as a solo founder.
I’ve also been using this service, but I generally think such forums are unlikely to lead to success. A cofounder is someone you’ll presumably be spending more time with them as you do with a partner or spouse. The “matching services” are basically dating services, with way, way fewer people in the pool. Meeting “the right person” there would be surprising to begin with, and then add in the expectations that some people seem to have that you’re going to go from meeting to marriage in a matter of a few conversations.
The way I’m thinking about it is that it’s useful to see how people present themselves, to meet other people in the same early-stage position, and to participate in an ecosystem that is oriented around learning. In the meantime, I’m trying to make progress understanding the customer and market, getting the input of developer friends I’ve worked with in the past, and doing fake-out prototyping so I’ll be ready to move quickly when I develop the relationship with a collaborator. This will likely be someone I already know, but it’s great to keep discussing it with new people too, if only to refine my thinking.
I know the feeling. I have spent the last two years with almost half a dozen “introductions” with possible co-founders for a business card reading app who just do not have the bandwidth or the gumption to take that “leap in being”. I’m finding in this phase of the tech cycle, it is simpler to bring the product to market through contractors and then finally lure in a tech talent once market fit has been established. Obviously there is great advantages in having a tech lead from the ground floor, but so far, it is eye opening to me how complacent people are with their current high paying jobs. I suppose that’s self-evident, but why not try to live a little?
I don’t intend to sound harsh, genuine question: what are you bringing to the table besides an idea? I feel ideas are not worth much — the only time they attract money and talent is once they become into being and their value prop is plain to see.
In lieu of that it’s a lot of rhetoric (not unimportant; valuable in many contexts), but not exactly a talent attractor.
Thank you for your question. I actually have source code and UX already built out. The product is 70% of the way there. I am looking for more than just a contractor to finish the app and to carry it forward long-term. It’s a great AI play. If anyone reading this would like to learn more please contact me at joseph@adilettante.com
And I agree with your point. I will likely keep self-funding it through software devs until market fit is reached, but by that point why wouldn’t I just keep a dev firm on retainer for QC? Or reach out to seed funding to find an in-network tech lead? I realize now that not all devs are ambitious, but maybe think about early retirement or building financial independence? Then again those who don’t need to work in orgs to pay the bills are independent anyways shrug.
It might be a case of Survivorship Bias (erm... anti-bias). The people out there who are still looking for co-founders are likely saddled with a business proposition that most people find objectionable.
> Sure, there are probably slightly more of them in Silicon Valley, but also SV is full of wannabes who are playing house, so the signal to noise ratio is actually less.
I started in DC and moved to the SFBA. Maybe I was around the wrong people in DC, but it sure seems a lot easier to at least find good people out here. It’s not that SV has magical water or anything. It’s simply there’s more people with startup experienced, and more people who come here to gain that experience.
I imagine the reverse is also true. If government and policy were my passion, I prevent would’ve been best staying in DC. Even though there’s plenty of talented government execs and policy experts everywhere.
As someone currently in DC, I think you might've moved from the worst place in the whole country for that comparison. DC is completely packed with wannabes, especially when it comes to anything tech-related. The problem isn't so much relatively little tech knowledge, but a huge disconnect between how much tech knowledge people claim versus actually have. The entire culture, at least among white-collar affluent people, is built around faking it for consulting/contracting/lobbying money. The place is full of hustlers starting fake "AI" and "blockchain" conferences. Almost any randomly chosen city in the U.S. would get you a better signal to noise ratio. I was more impressed with Houston, for example. It doesn't necessarily have any more technically competent people in absolute terms (there are actually a good number of solid companies in the DC area with knowledgeable people), but Houston doesn't have the same level of tech-bullshitting scene, so it's easier to sift through the noise.
Agree with this take. It’s a network effect - lots of good tech people have moved to the Bay Area, so you’ll find higher quality people. Nothing to do with the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a result of the people moving, and causes people to move, etc.
Completely agree. I'm an employee right now, but if I were ever looking for a co-founder, my shortlist would be the people I've worked with, hacking together some random project at all hours.
Kids play a game where someone pretends to be the mum, the dad, the baby, etc, and pretend be family. So someone is pretending be a responsible parent (and the commenter here is insinuating the wannabe co-founder is just pretending they have the necessary skills and abilities). As a kid, we never really had a name for it, but adults seem to refer to the activity as “playing house”.
Sure, there are probably slightly more of them in Silicon Valley, but also SV is full of wannabes who are playing house, so the signal to noise ratio is actually less. I feel any kind co-founder dating suffers from the exact same thing. YC's name gives it more legitimacy, but that very fact attracts more dedicated wannabes who are just playing house harder.
Ultimately after all these years I keep coming back to Joel Spolsky's idea of working with people who are "smart and get things done". That's it. I am skeptical I will find someone I want to work with on a co-founder dating site, because the people I want to work with are too busy trying to do a thing with the resources available to them versus looking for a longshot silver bullet. There are exceptions of course, but this is just my gut instinct, you might take it with a grain of salt since I waste a lot of time commenting on HN :)