Exactly 4 months ago I published a writeup of my experiences in the Y-Combinator CoFounder matching programme – meeting 30 potential co-founders in 2 months – and comparing it to the UK’s Entrepreneur First.
I haven’t founded a company yet, but I’m now spending a couple of days a week on a potential new business with co-founders. It may turn into a founded startup, or may not – so I’m still active in the YC pool, but less agressively so now. In the meantime … I wanted to share some more concrete advice to people looking to find their own co-founder.
If you do nothing else: check your own profile…
Writing a better YC Co-Founder profile
… because so many otherwise-good potentially cofounders shoot themselves in the foot with a lazy YC profile that’s fit for an internal corporate Alumni page, or a low-quality LinkedIn page – but useless for YC. Even though YC offers their own explicit advice on what to write.
And whatever you do: include a link to your LinkedIn – but not if you have “0 posts” and “no text for any role at any company, just the job titles” — because a blank/empty LinkedIn page is worse than none, it just wastes people’s time and suggests you did *nothing* worth talking about.
Since I spend a lot of my time using AI to solve problems and encouraging others to do so too, I *of course* wrote an AI to write better YC Profiles. It’s free, only requires a (free) ChatGPT account to use: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-I0IWCRSgE-yc-profile-optimizer – I got best results with dropping-in a CV, but you might get good results for overhauling your own first-draft human-written profile.
Stereotype Profiles I saw
I’ve now met well over 50 people via YC – and worked with some of them. These are the stereotypes that come up most often.
I’m sharing these in the spirit of “If this might be you – re-think your profile, because you’re scaring-away the more discerning potential founders”. Don’t take them too personally – just because YOU worked at FAANG doesn’t mean you’re ‘the FAANG stereotype’ (although some of your ex-colleagues might be…).
Barrow-boy salesman / city trader
- problems: too frenetic and chaotic, works 24/7, if they have to wait more than 3 minutes for a reply to an email they get angry
- problems: psychologically incapable of working in/with teams; this makes every business they create (and they’ve created many! even sold a few) fail as soon as it needs more than about 3-4 people to keep it running.
- gotchas: they’ve “sold” or “exited” multiple startups – but ask them the acquisition price, it’s typically 6 figures (or even: 5 figures!) and ask them how much debt the acquirer’s cash was paying off … what was their take-home? Often: not much.
- TL;DR: great at sales, stereotypically ADHD, terrible at business (mistakes ‘I can work so fast and hard and bully people into buying that I earn cash quickly’ for ‘creating a sustained-growth, rapidly-growing, scalable, large-exit business’)
Briefly FAANG / corporate middle-person
- problems: from reading their profile it seems even THEY believe that their greatest career achievement was passing the Google/Facebook/etc job interview
- problems: unless it’s ‘Web Scale’ they believe it’s Worthless – because at their FAANG that was drummed-in to everyone. But, Dude: you’re not in FAANG any more. Time to adapt your ambitions from the $10billion-someone-else-is-funding-me to the $1m-I-can-raise-or-sell-myself.
- gotchas: the FAANG halo burned away their humility. They’re incapable of working in/with diverse teams – but capable of bringing “I’m better than all of you” energy to each meeting
- gotchas: Personally: post-FAANG they’re so afraid of failing that they strugle with learning or growing outside of the cosy bubble they knew and loved
- gotchas: Operationally: attempt to re-play other people’s work that they never understood (e.g. copy a playbook from their FAANG ex-manager – which is typically wrong for any company with less than $1b revenue)
- TL;DR: mediocre at many things, but over-full of knowledge of how to operate after the startup has been acquired and it’s part of a large corporation. Until/unless they can break their programming and unlearn their FAANG-habits they’ll be their own worst enemy
Engineer burnt-out on people
- problems: cynical and bitter after multiple bad experiences with ‘all talk, no substance’ non-technical co-founders; in reaction: their bar for ‘trust’ is now set so high that no-one will ever meet it
- problems: they know what $$$ salary they can get if they take a full-time job instead, and on a risk/reward basis a startup just isn’t right for them – until they embrace the trust-first/low-evidence/high-risk mindset every co-founder will be rejected
- gotchas: 50/50 they can’t actually get a job in mainstream tech and that’s why they’re stuck here;
- gotchas: 50/50 they hate being stuck working ‘with idiots’ – the ‘trust’ and ‘compromise’ and ‘tolerate ignorance’ parts are too much for them, and so they’re half the problem in their previous failed startup experiences – and they’ll be all the problem in yours
- TL;DR: great at technology – more-so: often great at ‘deep tech’ (i.e. PhD level expertise in multiple areas), but emotionally draining to work with, always needing their co-founder to be ‘so perfect you compensate for the bad actions of my previous co-founders’.
Former entrepreneurs looking to hire people
- So your profile says “I sold my last company for $500 million”, and yet you’re so poorly connected (and so poor) you’re relying on a free web service to find your next co-founder? And you’ll happily connect with the people there and give them 50% of your next company? Hmm.
- gotchas: many are lying about their achievements/success – or deliberately misleading. Typically they weren’t at co-founder level or even C-level, it wasn’t ‘their’ startup – it was just a job they were doing. Starting your co-founder matching with deception – no matter how ‘technically true’ – is a mistake.
- gotchas: the rest aren’t realistically going to let anyone on YC have more than 10% of the company they found; they aren’t looking for a cofounder they’re looking for a VP (usually a VP Engineering, but sometimes a VP Sales or Operations). This is against the YC terms and conditions, so they had to fudge their profile to get allowed through. One meeting with them though and you can see the truth of the matter.
Engineers that just want to tinker
- problems: thinks they have a perfect product, it just needs the right salesperson to make them rich; the product has no traction but that’s because it hasn’t been ‘sold’ yet
- problems: has never heard of Peter Kazanjy (if you haven’t, and you’re a startup founder: go do some reading)
- gotchas: there’s two of them, they’re already co-founders, and they want a third ‘to do sales’
- gotchas: in this mindset the salesperson is fungible and two-a-penny – they don’t really deserve equity, they’re just a service-provider; sooner or later they stop being able to hide this attitude, and if it hasn’t emerged sooner it’ll appear at your first investment round and sink your termsheet deal
- TL;DR: introduce them to an experienced CTO / veteran startup mentor — they may genuinely have great ideas and experience and tech, but right now their baggage and teenager-naivety is killing every chance of success
PhD PhD who PhDs … PhD-ily
- problems: So my TED talk today is about how Andrei Karpathy said that the area I did my PhD in was ‘the most important innovation in AI’ (although my research was very narrow and he wasn’t referring to it); therefore I am founding a company; my PhD Supervisor said never to give away equity, so I want 98% equity (will grudgingly accept 50% for the right co-founder) I just need someone to do all the work. PS: I also need them to tell me what a startup is, and how you do them. I’m not worried – I have a PhD in PhD so we both know I’m smart.
- problems: this person will quit long before the startup succeeds – they massively underestimate the work involved. Sometimes the company even survives their departure!
- problems: often their contribution is barely 5% of the startup, but on day one it can feel like a lot more. They demand 50% of the equity, knowing their contribution over time will drop precipitously. Terrible match for cofounder and should be paid as much as possible in cash, not equity
- TL;DR: introduce them to some former Founding Engineers on LinkedIn, and give them a few months; if they’re cutout for startup founding they’ll come back with 3 MVPs and a proof-of-concept for something truly awe-inspiring; if not … they’ll get a job at one of the great big-tech research divisions, and be very happy.
Stereotypes ChatGPT detected from ny notes
I gave ChatGPT anonymised versions of all my own notes on each person I met, and had it identify the key stereotypes it inferred from what I’d written.
NOTE: all of these are too optimistic on ChatGPT’s behalf 🙂 given what I know of the circa 100 conversations it’s summarising from – it’s trying hard to find ‘a startup for everyone!’.
ChatGPT: The Visionary Strategist
- Characteristics: Deep thinkers, strong analytical skills, and market insights. They focus on strategy, market analysis, and understanding systemic issues.
- Strengths: Able to identify gaps and inefficiencies in markets, particularly in finance, data, and B2B spaces. Capable of high-level strategic thinking and forming valuable networks.
- Weaknesses: Often get caught in analysis paralysis, can be overly critical or skeptical. May lack the hands-on execution needed to bring ideas to life.
- Potential Fit: Great for startups needing a strategic co-founder focused on high-impact decisions, market positioning, or investor relations, but they need a proactive executor to balance their vision.
ChatGPT: The Tech Tinkerer
- Characteristics: Technically proficient, enthusiastic experimenters who love to play with tools and emerging technologies. Focused on rapid prototyping and problem-solving.
- Strengths: Strong technical depth in areas like AI, MLOps, and automation. Quick to implement and test new ideas, leveraging existing technologies to build MVPs.
- Weaknesses: Tend to lack focus on market needs, scalability, or business strategy. Often get sidetracked by shiny new technologies instead of seeing projects through to completion.
- Potential Fit: Ideal for startups that require technical innovation and rapid iteration. However, they may need a co-founder to provide strategic direction and commercial focus.
ChatGPT: The Juggling Generalist
- Characteristics: Multi-skilled individuals who wear multiple hats (e.g., design, engineering, marketing) and often attempt to do it all themselves.
- Strengths: Adaptable, resourceful, and capable of handling diverse challenges. Useful in early-stage startups that require flexibility and hands-on involvement across functions.
- Weaknesses: Can lack focus or a clear role definition. May struggle with prioritizing tasks, delegating responsibilities, or understanding where they need support.
- Potential Fit: Useful in startups where broad skills are needed to get projects off the ground, but they might not be as effective in scaling or specializing in a high-growth environment.
ChatGPT: The Industry Veteran
- Characteristics: Domain experts with extensive industry experience, often rooted in traditional sectors (e.g., maritime, finance, or physical goods).
- Strengths: Deep knowledge of niche markets and existing networks. Can bring practical insights and credibility in established industries.
- Weaknesses: May be slow to adapt to disruptive technologies or ignore systemic issues in their industries. Often overly focused on incremental improvements rather than radical innovation.
- Potential Fit: Best for startups targeting traditional industries where insider knowledge and relationships are crucial. However, they may resist pivoting or embracing high-risk, transformative ideas.
Other bad smells to look out for
Miscellaneous things that stood-out to me, usually deeper / more nuanced judgements I found myself making many times, especially when reading through my post-meeting notes. More to add here… (will post separately, still adding to this as I review my old notes).