Solo Founders Are Battling Silicon Valley's Biggest Bias

Solo entrepreneurs now launch 35% of all startups, double the rate from a decade ago, yet venture capital funding patterns remain virtually unchanged, according to an analysis by venture capitalist Sajith Pai. Carta's equity management data reveals that while solo-founded companies grew from 17% of 2,600 startups in 2015 to 35% of 3,800 startups in 2024, their share of VC funding barely moved from 15 to 17%.

"Valley VCs don't like solo founders," Pai, who is a partner at India-based venture firm Blume, writes in his analysis. Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan confirmed the accelerator's practice of persuading solo founders to find partners after acceptance.The bias persists despite prominent solo-founded successes including Amazon, SpaceX, and Zoom. Pai notes that "most unicorn startups have cofounders" but questions whether this reflects genuine risk differences or simply that cofounded startups receive five times more funding opportunities. "The bias against solo founders is so strong," Pai observes, that it appears repeatedly in founder complaints and venture capitalist commentary, even as other Silicon Valley biases against women and non-elite universities gradually ease.

If you want to go far, go together

[memory_register]

I worked at a startup accelerator for five years and can confirm solo founders rarely succeed. You only have so many hours in a day to learn and execute on a vision. One person is not enough. The solo founders usually end up with a big support team quickly.

Re:

[dsgrntlxmply]

It seems that the Ludwig/Archimedes Plutonium guy from Usenet long ago may either be undead or LLM-resurrected. "Atom atom atom."

Re: If you want to go far, go together

[Midnight_Falcon]

That's totally right in my experience. It's rare one founder has all the skills necessary and there's often a need for a second person to complement them. Perhaps one founder is focused on product and sales and the other on technical and team management. It's rare to find a single person who can wear fundraising, public relations, sales, marketing, operations and technical hats. At an early phase, much of these functions have to be founder led and you can't easily nor affordably hire out for them.

Re:

[PPH]

You can hire a Board of Directors. A panel of business experts to fill in the holes in experience that a solo founder might have. Pay them with limited rights shares, which can keep the key technology with the founder.

What I hear people say (and I agree) is that VCs like equal partners. Because when the time comes, it's easier to instigate a fight between those equals than it is to have to deal with one person with their hands on the core technology.

Re: If you want to go far, go together

[Midnight_Falcon]

Usually the Board represents the top shareholders, who invest in the company and aren't "hired", they're putting up the money. Early on it's the founders who control the board and in turn the company, with VCs getting seats and possibly veto power on certain issues etc. If you're actually referring to an Advisory Board, those advisors will work for a few hours a month for a few percent to a few tenths of a percent of the company. They're not going to do anything meaningful hands on, do sales for you, code

Sometimes there is a reason for a bias

[allo]

For example a small bus factor. Not only including busses and other tragedies, but also people just losing the motivation.

Easier to work with larger teams.

[nightflameauto]

And by "work with" I mean it's easier for VCs to find someone on the team willing to bend a bit to give them what they want. Yes, there is a small team / singular person working on big problems issue, and that's always been true, but VCs like throwing money at teams because the bigger the team, the better the chances are someone on the team will be compliant with their vision for the tech in question. A single founder probably has their own vision, and aren't apt to bend or break that vision at the whim of the investors unless forced to. A team? They're already compromising due to the nature of larger teams, and are much easier to get to comply with monetary mandates.

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing. Granted, VCs are pretty viciously brutal, but I'm certain this plays at least a small factor in why VCs don't tend to toss money at solo founders.

Re: Easier to work with larger teams.

[sodul]

It is also easier to divide and conquer the more co-founders there are. This makes it easier for the VC to manipulate and control. If one of the co-founders do not want to play ball with the VC they get pushed out. I've seen it at multiple startups.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

It is also easier to divide and conquer the more co-founders there are. This makes it easier for the VC to manipulate and control. If one of the co-founders do not want to play ball with the VC they get pushed out. I've seen it at multiple startups.

Oh sure, that's a part of what I was implying with the whole "work with" and "bend a bit."

Becoming biased by maintaining standards?

[timeOday]

Interesting interpretation to say that VC's are now "biased" because they're inclined to fund partnerships - just like they always were.

What has changed is an increase in the number of would-be solo entrepreneurs who shun partnership. What's causing that new bias? Maybe VC's are wary of funding Covid Kids who think they can build an empire before they have even built a team or partnership.

Re:

[MeNeXT]

Sometimes, having a partner(s) means you have to work harder and do their job. I find it rare where you have 2 or more people dedicated to the same goals. Most today are looking for the quick buck.

Re: Becoming biased by maintaining standards?

[bramez]

People choose to be solopreneurs because they can. When I started In the nineties, being a solopreneur meant high startup costs for office space, servers, distribution, ads. There were gatekeepers everywhere. You could not even incorporate in my country. Today a laptop, $20 worth of SaaS tools, and an internet connection in a coffeeshop gets you global reach, easy community building, near instant mvp validation, AI doing the work of a small dev plus marketing team. the leverage has become orders of magni

Re:

[timeOday]

But then, do you really need a VC at all?

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Hookers and blow didn't get any cheaper. Nor did the private jets to put them on.

Re:

[evanh]

Exactly. Calling out best-practice as being biased is just a headline/clicks grabber.

AI vs Automation

[oldgraybeard]

If you look at AI more in terms of automation (a bunch of bots) doing things for the solo founders. Maybe VC's should take another look. A whole new business operations model.

Division of labor?

[Comboman]

Startup partnerships usually have one member focusing on the technical challenges and the other focusing on the business challenges (think Jobs/Wozniak or Gates/Allen). A solo founder, even if they have skills in both areas, is spread very thin and probably can't grow the startup fast enough for most VCs to be interested.

Fuck Founders

[DaFallus]

99.999% of founders are scum. Most of their ideas are just shitty rehashed version of successful products with the single goal of being bought out by a larger company and getting paid. Everyone who helped them get there gets fucked when their "equity" becomes as valuable as used toilet paper due to vesting traps and other shenanigans. They're also some of the douchiest, most annoying people on the planet.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Most founders aren't scum. Just the ones who call themselves that. Other people call it "starting a business" and they call themselves "the schmuck who thought this was a good idea."

Re:

[registrations_suck]

Show me on the doll where the Founder touched you.

Re:

[DaFallus]

LinkedIn

This is an atrocity

[hdyoung]

These venture capitalists think that a team of two people can accomplish more than a single individual. Clearly, this violates ALL the laws. Somehow. I dunno. I'm just angry, I guess.

Sarcasm aside, no, this is not a "bias". It's a recognition of the mathematical fact that 2 is greater than 1.

My new venture!

[spitzak]

I'm starting a new venture, all by myself, to design an AI that will assist people in differentiating between Solo entrepreneurs, Han Solo, and Solo drinking cups when they are mentioned online. I'm ready to go, just gimme my VC capital! What, you won't do that? You must be biased against Solo!!!!!

Re:

[PPH]

I can see some problems with your AI already.

- Napoleon Solo

it stands to reason

[toxonix]

If you can't find a partner, why should I partner with you?

hey wanna dance?
why? .. nobody else wants to dance with me.
not a good answer.

I'm ...

[PPH]

...schizophrenic. Does that count as partners?