I will write this in such a way that I don’t give away which person I am.
Co-founders
The following startup idea currently has 3 co-founders.
1) A domain cofounder, who has knowledge of the domain (10+ years) the software product is for.
2) A medical doctor, whose best friends in high school and university respectively are person #1 and #3.
3) A technical cofounder who has a technical background (10+ years) of the platforms the software will be built on.
I won’t put whose idea it was, because I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s all about execution, and ideas are worth little without execution.
Initial ground work
These individuals have met 5-10 times to hash out this idea. They have gone through all the user stories, wireframed the software, had some of the wireframes photoshopped (with intention of determining early user interest), created a customer facing way to determine interest. Essentially #1 will be taking this to 300 individuals to garner interest over the next week in this particular domain.
MVP Stage
If all goes well, and people are interested, #3 has talked to others in his technical domain and figures the MVP will take 8-10 full-time weeks for #3 to build. He has a contracting ending in 2 weeks, and will take this time to build it. (#2 may make some payments to #3 for work done, as #3 is investing the most amount of risk early on)
At this point, once the MVP is done, #1 owns part of the domain space he is in and is bringing the MVP into this space to test out. At this point, a combination of all 3 of them will gather information from users and continually iterate on the product and the MVP.
Post MVP
Here, if everything has gone well, we would seek seed funding. Part of the MVP is gathering analytics. #1 has very good data on the way the space operates right now, and the MVP will give them great post-MVP numbers to compare.
Everyone is prepared to quit their job and do this full time if all goes well after the initial MVP tests.
I (not saying which one I am) like the positives of an equal equity share. Those positives being that everyone will work full out for the idea, that no one feels like than anyone else, etc.
Continuing on, if we assume everything were to go well and seed funding was obtained, the 3 cofounders would assume the roles they need to assume. #1 would likely be involved as a sales expert in the domain. He would know best how to bring it to market. #2 would assume the role that he is needed to assume at that time, likely hitting the ground and talking to users so we can iterate on the product. #3 would assume the technical responsibilities involved including hiring and product technical direction based on the user and domain feedback we receive.
Equity
Is it ok to have an equal split on this idea? Are there any downsides with doing such a thing? There is no desire to fight over % points, or get nitpicky. Some will do a little more than others during different stages. Everyone at YC preaches that they look for cofounders who have known and worked with each other for a long time (2 has known both 1 and 3 for 15+ years each). Cofounders of 2 and 3, and not solo cofounders, etc.
Looking forward to hearing why this can work, or if not, why.
Thank you a lot!
submitted by /u/LaserWolfTurbo72
[link] [comments]
April 28, 2017 at 06:53PM
from /u/LaserWolfTurbo72
No comments:
Post a Comment