Co-founder conflict is responsible for far more fuck-ups than we may care to notice.
One Princeton study about co-founders says 65% of startups failed due to co-founder disagreements. Ultimately, it all boils down to one word, always: control. This a feasible restructuring to help eliminate the co-founder conundrum, based on striking a partnership deal that's more attuned to real-life behavior.
This reads like the author trying to convince his partners they are worthless and should take this Amazing Deal he's offering ... instead of, you know, being business partners.
Have you read the article? The subtitle literally is "You don’t need a technical co-founder: what you need is a technical business partner"
I have no co-founders and am not looking for one.
Co-founder conflict is responsible for far more fuck-ups than we may care to notice. One Princeton study about co-founders says 65% of startups failed due to co-founder disagreements. Ultimately, it all boils down to one word, always: control. This a feasible restructuring to help eliminate the co-founder conundrum, based on striking a partnership deal that's more attuned to real-life behavior.
This reads like the author trying to convince his partners they are worthless and should take this Amazing Deal he's offering ... instead of, you know, being business partners.
Have you read the article? The subtitle literally is "You don’t need a technical co-founder: what you need is a technical business partner" I have no co-founders and am not looking for one.