Skip to content

Comment on Three's Company (Why three co-founders is better than two.)

Comments

We have three founders and it's been pretty solid. It's very hard to have a decision impasse with 3 people. We all defer to each other's area of expertise and in the (many) areas where were are all stupid (but still have the make a decision), we defer to the majority (or occasionally, it's a "loudocracy"... :-) ).

Another downside that I don't think was mentioned is that your "ramen profitable" number goes up by about 50%.

Even with that, I think the 50% bump in (free and maniacal) manpower plus the extra perspective is totally worth it.

I always say that it's better to optimize your CHANCE of success rather than the magnitude of it, should it happen. Hard to argue that a good (free!) co-founder wouldn't do that.

We also rock the 3-partner model - No problems yet. Easy to mediate decisions. We each have our core focus and can make game time decisions ad hoc, but if strategy is involved or a big decision needs to be made, the third person usually has very valuable insight, especially when two partners are butting heads.

Good point about ramen profitability going up with a third partner. On the flip side, you could say that your company is even further along when you do in fact reach ramen profitability then.

Absolutely. With 3 founders, you don't stop when you're making enough for 2 people to be comfortable with. You have to earn enough for at least 3 people, and when you are at that level, it's much easier to grow.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.