When Investors Say They Don't Back Solo Founders, It's Usually Just a Polite No
65% of startups die of people problems, and in an early-stage company the only "people" are the co-founders — so "we don't back solo founders" is often just the easiest exit for an investor who doesn't want to say what they really mean.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
A co-founder isn't table stakes, it's a high bar
They've spent seven years helping people find co-founders and still believe a great co-founder is enormously valuable — but the bar should be absurdly high. Don't force one just because "everyone thinks you should have one" — that's a co-founder of convenience. Their position isn't "don't find a co-founder," it's "don't let finding a co-founder stop you from starting."
Companies die of people problems, and early on the only person is the founder
About 65% of companies fail because of people problems, not product and not customers. And when a company is just getting started, the only "person" in it is the co-founder — so the co-founder is itself the leading source of company death. That leads directly to a counterintuitive conclusion: a solo founder actually sidesteps the biggest cause of early-stage death.
The number one killer of solo founders is loneliness
Solo founders don't have a co-founder, so the most common early-stage blowup cause doesn't apply to them; their real failure point is loneliness. With no teammate, no one with equal weight and equal incentive carrying it alongside you, things going badly is devastating. Their solution isn't to force you into a pairing, it's build solo together — gathering solo founders who each run their own company, giving each other context, connections and insight, but without forcing anyone into a team.
Not backing solo founders is the easiest rejection line there is
Investors really do have a bias against solo founders, but more often it's just the least offensive reason to say no. Saying "I'd love to back you, but I don't back solo founders" is far easier than saying "I don't believe in you, I don't believe in your company, I don't believe in your market." So don't take a pass too seriously, and don't expect them to change their mind — they usually won't. But equally, don't over-read the reason for the pass: unless they gave you very direct, very brutal feedback, it's mostly just a way of preserving the relationship.
Without a co-founder, investors can only judge you by your hiring
Investors will care especially about who you hire next, because without a co-founder they've lost the ready-made yardstick for your talent bar. Every person you hire adds a cultural signal to the company: you're founder and CEO, but after three hires, 75% of the people aren't founders. So investors want to know what your talent standard is. The exception is companies like Pulseia's Ben, chasing true solo and hiring as few people as possible.
Solo founders don't have to optimize only for valuation
If the company is split three ways, dilution hurts much more, so you might take a higher valuation from a lower-quality firm just to dilute less. Solo founders don't have that pressure and can prioritize a firm with a better reputation, one more likely to help you than hurt you. The conclusion: valuation is just one of many variables when choosing a lead investor, and it shouldn't be the only one.
The denominator delusion: failed companies had co-founders too
The data argument against solo founders is that "most of the most successful companies were co-founded" — which is true as far as it goes. But it's missing the denominator: how many failed companies were also co-founded? Put the denominator in and you find that far more co-founded companies fail. The denominator is so large for two reasons: everyone believes you must have a co-founder, and co-founders are exactly why most companies die. For solo founders both the numerator and the denominator are smaller, and you still have a shot at being a winner — you just have to keep going.
People who worry they have solo founder syndrome usually don't
Solo founder syndrome is roughly understood as "can't work well with others." Their retort: then what syndrome do the 65% of companies that break up over co-founders have? There really are people who want a co-founder but can't find one because they're a jerk — but the people who worry "am I a jerk?" are precisely the ones who don't need to worry about it. The people who should worry never let the thought cross their mind.
In their own words · checked verbatim
You should not be settling for a co-founder. You should not end up with a co-founder of convenience just because you think other people think you should have a co-founder.
about 65% of the reasons that uh companies fail are because of people issues. It's not about product or about customers. It's about people. And when you're starting a company, the only people are the co-founders.
0ero to one is hell if you're a solo founder.
Oh, gee, you know, I'd really love to invest in you, but I don't invest in solo founders. Is a lot easier than saying, oh, I don't really believe in you or your company or your market or that you'll ever figure it out.
How many of the companies that have failed also have co-founders? And if you include the denominator in this, you'll see that not only of course are many great companies started with co-founders, but many many many more are started that ultimately fail.
the denominator is devastating for co-founded companies.
no jerk actually worries about being considered a jerk or having solo founder syndrome.
Figures
| Share of company failures caused by people problems | About 65% | 2:05 |
| Applications for the first cohort of the solo founder program | 1,000 applications for 6 spots | 7:08 |
| Applications for the fourth cohort of the solo founder program | 4,500 applications for 10 spots | 7:08 |
| Length of the solo founder program | 3 months, in San Francisco | 7:08 |
| Time for one solo founder company to land a government partnership | 5 months after incorporation | 7:08 |
| Downloads for one solo founder company | 3 million | 7:08 |
| ARR for one solo founder company | $2 million, without hiring a single person | 7:08 |
Glossary
- co-founder of convenience
- A co-founder you settle for because you feel you "should" have one, rather than someone genuinely right.
- denominator delusion
- Looking only at the share of successful companies with co-founders while ignoring that failed companies had co-founders too.
- true solo
- Going as long as possible without hiring any human teammate, running the company entirely alone.
- talent bar
- The threshold a founder actually enforces when hiring; investors use it to judge team quality.
How to listen
Founders who are considering going solo or have already been rejected by investors with "we don't back solo founders," and early-stage investors who want to understand what actually kills early-stage companies.
07:08 to 08:09 is a recruitment ad for the solo founder program; you can skip it.