创业与商业techcrunch.com
打破迷思：数据显示你其实不需要联合创始人
Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
2016 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
TechCrunch 2016 年的一篇文章，用 Crunchbase 一类的融资与退出数据说明：成功的创业公司里有相当比例是单人创始人，因此“创业必须找联合创始人”更像是流传甚广的迷思而非事实。文中按创始人数量对融资额、退出情况做了分组统计比较。
为什么经久不衰：它挑战了创业圈最根深蒂固的教条之一，而评论区对统计口径的犀利质疑（条件概率方向搞反、缺少分母）让这篇数据文本身成了“如何误读数据”的经典案例。
HN 评论精选
文章把条件概率方向搞反了，无法回答“多一个创始人是否提高成功率”。
大多数人真正关心的问题是 P(成功 | 创始人数量)，而文章回答的却是 P(创始人数量 | 成功)，只不过对“成功”换了几种衡量指标。这两个问题并不相同！特别是：成功创业公司的平均创始人数可能偏低，但多创始人仍可能让成功概率更高。
afoihfoina查看英文原文
The question that most people are interested in is P(Success | Number of Founders) but what the article has answered is P(Number of Founders | Success) for a couple of different metrics of "success". They are not the same question! In particular, the average number of founders for a successful startup might be low, but the chances could still be better with more founders.
缺少“尝试者”分母，单看获融资公司的创始人分布没有意义。
这篇文章相当糟糕，因为它只统计了获得融资的创业公司数量，而没看尝试创业的公司数量。假如 99.999% 的创业尝试都来自单人创始人，那么在所有其他条件相同的情况下，你会预期获融资的公司也偏向单人创始人，而这说明不了什么。
_lex查看英文原文
This is pretty bad article because it focuses on # of funded startups, not # of attempted startups. What if 99.999% of startups attempted were attempted by solo founders? It would make you expect that the # of funded startups should also tilt towards solo founders - if all other odds were even, you'd expect 99.999% of funded startups to be solo founders, and it would not mean much.
四次联合创业都败于内斗，转向单人创始后盈利，亲身例子支持“不必有联合创始人”。
我参与联合创办过 4 家创业公司，想法都不错，但都因内斗或创始人分歧而烧钱烧时间最后失败。其中一家的联合创始人为了带走公司权利闹得很难看，我们另外两人干脆让给了他；他卖掉权利后，那家公司如今成了融资顺利、利润高涨的成功企业（两位创始人）。祝他们好运。此后我自己做了一家单人创始公司，目前盈利、在增长，估值约 220 万美元，计划 2018 年初以 1000 万到 2000 万美元区间退出。我以后还会创业，会招能补足我短板的高管，但不会再找联合创始人。我宁愿把聪明的商业伙伴留在智囊团里互相碰撞想法，也不愿让分歧把我们变成敌人、毁掉公司。关于选联合创始人的通识是：如果你是愿景型，就找个幕后型搭档；如果你跟愿景型合伙，就要确保自己甘当幕后。我发现的问题是，大多数想创业的人都是愿景型。
throwaway7312查看英文原文
I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for that team. Since then, I've managed my own single-founder startup. We're profitable, growing, and valued at about $2.2 million. We're implementing a lot more over the course of this year and next, and I will look to exit in early 2018, once our valuation is closer to the $10 million or $20 million range. I have a lot of other companies I want to start after. I will bring on talented people in executive roles who can complement me and make up for my own weaknesses, but I won't cofound again. I'd rather keep the smart, business-oriented people I know in masterminds where we can compare ideas and bounce thoughts off each other, than wade into business situations where our differences turn us into enemies and destroy the company. The general wisdom on picking cofounders is pick a behind-the-scenes guy if you're a visionary, or make sure you're comfortable as the behind-the-scenes guy if you're partnering with a visionary. The problem I find (and one I've seen in a lot of cofounder groups) is that most of the people who want to start startups are visionaries.
单人可从 0 到 1，但扩张仍需团队；如今单干门槛降低，融资歧视是主要代价。
要建立成功的创业公司，你未必需要联合创始人，但你需要团队。如果你能独自从 0 做到 1，那就不需要联合创始人；但从 1 做到 N，你需要团队。我第一家公司有联合创始人，效率极低，因为达成共识要花很多时间。第二家公司我一个人起步，情况好多了：我是工程师，能快速把东西做出来。单人创业唯一的劣势是融资可能更慢，投资人通常歧视单人创始人，但并非不可能——只要你能证明自己足够强，仍有投资人愿意下注。如今单干比以往任何时候都可行，尤其当你会写代码时。想想看：商务人士学编程快，还是程序员学商业快？补充一点：现在单人创办科技公司更容易了——启动成本更低、技术栈和云基础设施商品化、网上有大量建议、还有 Stripe Atlas……我猜当这一代单人创始人成功之后，其中一些人会成为 VC，他们会更共情单人创始人，更愿意给像他们一样的人下注。
wenbin查看英文原文
To build a successful startup, you don't have to get a co-founder. What you need is a team. If you are able to get things off the ground, doing 0 to 1 all by yourself, then you don't need a co-founder. But doing 1 to N, you need a team. I had a co-founder in my first company, and we were very unproductive, as reaching consensus took a lot of time. Then I started my second company without a cofounder. Things get way better this time. I'm an engineer and I get to build things quickly. The only downside of founding company alone is, raising money may take longer. Investors typically discriminate sole founder. But it's not impossible. There are still investors willing to take a bet on sole founders if you are able to prove that you are capable enough. It's more possible than ever to start a company alone, especially when you know how to write code. Think about this, which is faster: a business person learns coding, or a programmer learns business skills? Edit: adding this -- It becomes easier to start a tech company as a sole-founder nowadays, e.g., cheaper to bootstrap, commodity of tech stack / cloud infra, tons of advices on the internet, Stripe Atlas... I suspect that when this generation of sole-founders succeed, some of them will become VCs and they'll have more empathy on sole-founders and will bet on more sole-founders like them.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
微软已死（2007）
Microsoft is Dead (2007)
Paul Graham 2007 年的一篇短文，判断微软在互联网与创业竞争中已不再令人畏惧、失去影响力——所谓“死”并非字面倒闭。
创业与商业上首页 8 次 · 2007–2025paulgraham.comH&R Block 与 Intuit 游说反对简化报税（2017）
H&R Block and Intuit Lobbying Against Simpler Tax Filing (2017)
2017年ProPublica调查报道梳理了H&R Block和Intuit如何通过游说反对更简单的美国报税方式，尤其是政府预填税表和免费申报等改革。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2017–2022propublica.org你本不该有老板
You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss (2008)
Paul Graham 2008 年的经典文章，论证人类在演化中习惯于小团体协作，而大公司的层级结构和老板制度是人为产物，对程序员尤其有害——因为编程的本质是创造新事物，而大公司…
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2020paulgraham.com为什么要在经济糟糕时创业
Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy
Paul Graham 的经典短文，论证经济衰退并不是创业的障碍：真正决定成败的是创始人和产品，而非宏观环境；衰退期反而竞争更少、人才更易招、成本更低。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2022paulgraham.com做那些不可规模化的事
Do Things that Don't Scale
Paul Graham 2013 年的经典创业文章《Do Things that Don't Scale》。
创业与商业上首页 4 次 · 2013–2025paulgraham.com编辑精选