I think your idea of throwing away a prototype is a great one. We essentially did that when we launched our startup, although it was just a major refactoring rather than a complete ditch-and-rebuild effort.
Beyond that, oh man...
Even if the non technical cofounders sit on their asses and do absolutely nothing while you code all day, you'd be sitting on 33% equity in an already successful startup, when they took all the cash risk up front to prove the thing works.
It's this mindset that makes a lot of would-be technical co-founders see non-technical people as a threat. I don't care if you're a technical or non-technical co-founder, if you're not going to pull your weight somehow, I don't want to be in business with you.
Also, to be honest, the "cash risk" is essentially irrelevant to me because I have the skill set to build and validate the MVP myself. There's also a large enough market for my skills that I could sell consulting services (yes, at north of $100/hour) to cover any financial costs to test an MVP.
All you're really bringing to the table is the first 3 steps, and asking your technical co-founder(s) to handle the next 617 or so. It's better than just a "big idea", but not by as much as you're thinking.
All you've got to do now is code and build on existing success. And you think that's an offer that you should scoff at?
Oh, is that all?
Here's a hypothetical scenario: let's say Toyota builds a concept car and takes it to an auto show to demonstrate it to customers. They get fantastic feedback and decide to take the car to market. So, you'd be willing to take the concept car design and find a way to manufacture it in an efficient and cost-effective manner? I mean once the customer validation is done, all that "engineering" stuff must be simple, right?
Metaphor aside, an MVP is vastly different than a truly sustainable product. If it's a true MVP, there will be a myriad of unsolved problems (scalability, maintainability, etc.) that only a skilled engineer can solve. Not to mention, what happens when the market inevitably shifts, rendering some or all of your customer validation effort useless?
The most important aspect of any startup is the dynamic of the team. The most important part of that (in my opinion) is to have clearly delineated roles, roughly equivalent in workload and importance. The best teams have members with complementary and supplementary skills, and everyone respects the skills and contributions of everyone else.
My attitude puzzles you because you're assuming that 90% of the risk comes before the MVP. Launch is very different than break-even, which is very different than sustainability or a liquidity event.
I'm a huge believer in the lean startup (I launched and sold one myself) but you have to recognize that the initial customer validation is just the first step down a very long and arduous road. It's hard enough to walk that road in the first place, let alone if I have to carry you on my back.
My attitude puzzles you because you're assuming that 90% of the risk comes before the MVP.
Absolutely, most startups fail because they build something that people don't want. That doesn't mean things like scalability and maintainability don't matter. It means you're putting the cart before the horse if you're worrying about those things before you even have a product that people want.
All you're really bringing to the table is the first 3 steps, and asking your technical co-founder(s) to handle the next 617 or so. It's better than just a "big idea", but not by as much as you're thinking.
Aren't your same gripes just as valid against venture capitalists? I mean, all they're giving you is money, and they're trying to take a huge chunk of equity while you have to worry about the next 617 steps?
I'm not suggesting that you worry about scalability and maintainability first. I'm saying that only a fully-invested and skilled engineer can solve those problems for you, and they are probably not interested in working for you if you aren't also working just as hard.
Aren't your same gripes just as valid against venture capitalists?
Arguably. But, good venture capitalists give you not only huge sums of money that you wouldn't otherwise be able to pool, but also advice and access to their professional network.
Arguably. But, good venture capitalists give you not only huge sums of money that you wouldn't otherwise be able to pool, but also advice and access to their professional network.
I just find it peculiar how this entire HN community seems in love with the idea of giving away equity in exchange for money and advice, to hopefully increase the odds that your programming work will eventually turn into a big payday...but you seem completely standoffish about the idea of receiving equity in exchange for working on a product that already has proven traction, which would sky rocket the odds of your programming work eventually turning into a big payday.
In other words, you'd get the same increased odds of success that venture capital brings, but you'd be receiving equity instead of giving it away.
In one case, you're bitter about the prospect the person who increases your odds not putting in as many hours as you; in the other case, you gladly accept the prospect of a person increasing your odds but not putting in as many hours as you.
My question is why you're so fixated on hours of work, and instead aren't just look at it in terms of business opportunity where you can make a ton of money? Hours of work seems to be a bad, arbitrary metric to obsess over.
Beyond that, oh man...
Even if the non technical cofounders sit on their asses and do absolutely nothing while you code all day, you'd be sitting on 33% equity in an already successful startup, when they took all the cash risk up front to prove the thing works.
It's this mindset that makes a lot of would-be technical co-founders see non-technical people as a threat. I don't care if you're a technical or non-technical co-founder, if you're not going to pull your weight somehow, I don't want to be in business with you.
Also, to be honest, the "cash risk" is essentially irrelevant to me because I have the skill set to build and validate the MVP myself. There's also a large enough market for my skills that I could sell consulting services (yes, at north of $100/hour) to cover any financial costs to test an MVP.
All you're really bringing to the table is the first 3 steps, and asking your technical co-founder(s) to handle the next 617 or so. It's better than just a "big idea", but not by as much as you're thinking.
All you've got to do now is code and build on existing success. And you think that's an offer that you should scoff at?
Oh, is that all?
Here's a hypothetical scenario: let's say Toyota builds a concept car and takes it to an auto show to demonstrate it to customers. They get fantastic feedback and decide to take the car to market. So, you'd be willing to take the concept car design and find a way to manufacture it in an efficient and cost-effective manner? I mean once the customer validation is done, all that "engineering" stuff must be simple, right?
Metaphor aside, an MVP is vastly different than a truly sustainable product. If it's a true MVP, there will be a myriad of unsolved problems (scalability, maintainability, etc.) that only a skilled engineer can solve. Not to mention, what happens when the market inevitably shifts, rendering some or all of your customer validation effort useless?
The most important aspect of any startup is the dynamic of the team. The most important part of that (in my opinion) is to have clearly delineated roles, roughly equivalent in workload and importance. The best teams have members with complementary and supplementary skills, and everyone respects the skills and contributions of everyone else.
My attitude puzzles you because you're assuming that 90% of the risk comes before the MVP. Launch is very different than break-even, which is very different than sustainability or a liquidity event.
I'm a huge believer in the lean startup (I launched and sold one myself) but you have to recognize that the initial customer validation is just the first step down a very long and arduous road. It's hard enough to walk that road in the first place, let alone if I have to carry you on my back.