What do you mean by co-founders? There is a common misconception that co-founders implies an equal equity stake. This is not usually the case and is oftentimes sub-optimal / problematic. Also, in cases where different classes of stock exist (F stock), co-founder could imply F stock and would have a very different implication.
An equal equity split between 2 people is an often advised against situation. Personally, it's worked for me, thus far. However, in my case, I'm working with someone I've known for more than 10 years, we have complimentary skill sets, we decided we wanted to work together from day one...and other sound justifications rational people would need to ensure the fact that no ranking decision maker wouldn't be an issue. That being said, this type of arrangement often blows up & it gets ugly.
I'd offer this as a better definition of a co-founder. One who works on a startup before any money is raised and is in it for the long haul (they have a vesting equity stake). This doesn't imply equal equity.
Using the latter definition, a common practice that has worked for several entrepreneurs goes as follows. Someone has an idea and starts working on it. They move it along enough to entice another person, whom can accelerate some aspect of the product significantly (given the stage) and is compelled the product/vision enough to join the team. This person is given some % of equity (typically 15-30%) and is now a co-founder. As the product continues to move along & theoretically increase in value, people brought in to contribute (before salary can be paid) get progressively smaller and smaller stakes. The company can afford to pay salaries, the next filled position is typically considered the 1st hire.
The earlier you are, the more decisions you have to make to figure out your projects place in the world. The larger the group, the more time is allocated to decision making and not to doing. That's really bad.
Also note, being the ultimate decision maker at an early startup sucks: It's hard on you, time consuming, stressful, expensive (startup & opp cost), everyone involved should realize your leading them aboard the Titanic and the goal post keeps moving. As the first founder, your job is to make sure that you bring on the right type of people and you won't know who that is at the get go. But, the startup world is filled with the wrong type of people that want to get in early and be a co-founder. Those type of people will judge everything you do as CEO (especially when you don't do what they think you should do), kill morale and ultimately, make getting a startup off the ground much harder than it already is.
An equal equity split between 2 people is an often advised against situation. Personally, it's worked for me, thus far. However, in my case, I'm working with someone I've known for more than 10 years, we have complimentary skill sets, we decided we wanted to work together from day one...and other sound justifications rational people would need to ensure the fact that no ranking decision maker wouldn't be an issue. That being said, this type of arrangement often blows up & it gets ugly.
I'd offer this as a better definition of a co-founder. One who works on a startup before any money is raised and is in it for the long haul (they have a vesting equity stake). This doesn't imply equal equity.
Using the latter definition, a common practice that has worked for several entrepreneurs goes as follows. Someone has an idea and starts working on it. They move it along enough to entice another person, whom can accelerate some aspect of the product significantly (given the stage) and is compelled the product/vision enough to join the team. This person is given some % of equity (typically 15-30%) and is now a co-founder. As the product continues to move along & theoretically increase in value, people brought in to contribute (before salary can be paid) get progressively smaller and smaller stakes. The company can afford to pay salaries, the next filled position is typically considered the 1st hire.
The earlier you are, the more decisions you have to make to figure out your projects place in the world. The larger the group, the more time is allocated to decision making and not to doing. That's really bad.
Also note, being the ultimate decision maker at an early startup sucks: It's hard on you, time consuming, stressful, expensive (startup & opp cost), everyone involved should realize your leading them aboard the Titanic and the goal post keeps moving. As the first founder, your job is to make sure that you bring on the right type of people and you won't know who that is at the get go. But, the startup world is filled with the wrong type of people that want to get in early and be a co-founder. Those type of people will judge everything you do as CEO (especially when you don't do what they think you should do), kill morale and ultimately, make getting a startup off the ground much harder than it already is.
So, how many co-founders is too many?
too many > smallest number needed
Good luck!