I disagree. Having a team of employees is quite different from giving up 50% of your equity.

Its been said by YC partners themselves that co-founder disputes are a major reason why startups fail. A co-founder just means a lot of additional risk.

May be if you both have some crucial skills that you bring to the table, it'd be worth taking on a co-founder. But if you can build the product on your own, I just don't see any good reason to give up 50% equity + take on the risk of disputes arising.

If you have a natural co-founder, someone who developed an idea with you, and you trust deeply, great. (If it's a close friend, you might be losing that friend eventually, though, but I think I'd prefer someone in friend territory).

If you are going to be doing sales/fund-raising versus having the money come to you, it can be very hard to do all of that. But I don't believe in the idea that it can't be done either - especially if it's a website where somebody can sign up and pay, and you don't need sales - and ideally can avoid fundraising.

Anyway, if you don't immediately have a perfect idea for who a "co-founder" should be, consider whether you want one. I think it's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, perhaps a bit too lightly. I wish they were really just called "founders" really - and if you had an idea, the person you brought on later is "help", not the founder. Consider granting significantly less equity and keeping your control.

If not, realize that this relationship is a lot like marriage, and you're much less likely to be in love with this person, and probably will see them more. A co-founder is not something to be simply go out and "got".

You will probably need lots of help, but "co-founder" just isn't something to be given away casually. Hire the help you need, sure.

I do agree with GP a bit on the solo founder. Here is the thing, I have enough contacts in the industry that if I wanted, I could form a very good team if I had the money to pay them (thus, the idea of getting investment money as a solo founder), but none of those people would agree to be co-founders as they know the chance of striking it big are very very small and they can clear very very good salaries as employees. Sure, if you are 22 and have a few friends just graduating at the same age, you will find co-founders, but if you are 35+, have 15 or more years under your belt, and most of your network as well, they won't leave very high paid jobs to be co-founders, and honestly, after working with them and knowing what they are capable, I wouldn't want a 22 fresh graduate as a co-founder either (unless he was truly exceptional)

I'm a single founder of a medical devices startup looking for a co-founder. It is very hard as a single founder to keep all the plates spinning, not impossible, just hard. There is enough risk in what we are doing, so finding a co-founder is, in my opinion, a sensible way to reduce risk.

However, for me, its also the ability to talk things through, bounce things off each other and, in the tough times, keep each other going. I'm sure others will agree that it can be incredibly lonely and isolating at times running a startup. From personal experience, there are some pretty low moments and times when you have no idea what the right path to take is. Having another person there, who is equally committed to building an amazing company, is a major plus and thats why I'm putting a lot of time into doing that right now.

The flip side though is having the wrong co-founder. Again, I have experienced this and its debilitating and led to the end of friendships.

PS: As mentioned, looking for a co-founder with skills in machine learning, AI and bio-informatics ;) Contact details on profile.