I think you're setting yourself up for a world of hurt here. Starting a company is really hard, and there is very little downside to being in a team. VCs agree on this, and will show the same attitude towards solo founders as YC does.

The real question is why you're even contemplating being a solo founder. Discounting you actually wanting to be solo (that's a whole different kettle of fish) the reason is probably because it's really hard to find a co-founder. Co-founder dating doesn't work, meetups have terrible SNR, etc.

It's an unfortunate (for the rest of the world, YC might disagree) fact that the best place to find a co-founder are places like Stanford. Elite US universities, which encourage entrepreneurship, where external factors align to create lots of liquidity around able co-founders.

So while I think something like the YC Fellowship is great, the team has missed the boat. The actual problem in very early stage startups is not money, but suitable co-founders.

(Of course I'm totally biased, since I run a startup program based on this concept in the UK [1].)

[1] http://joinef.com

We may try something in a future iteration to help people meet cofounders. In the mean time, working a large tech company is a good strategy.

Some companies have non-solicitation clauses in their employment contracts, which make this a troublesome way to meet cofounders.

> Please be extremely open minded about solo founders. I feel that is one consideration that hasn't been adapted with the changing tech landscape.

This is something I always worry about too. I have several really amazing people that I could partner with on a few different things but due to financial obligations there isn't anyway they'd be able to join full time unless there was an investment. So pitching as a solo always makes me nervous that I'll be immediately discounted even if I could bring in a partner shortly thereafter.

> I have several really amazing people that I could partner with on a few different things but due to financial obligations there isn't anyway they'd be able to join full time unless there was an investment. So pitching as a solo always makes me nervous that I'll be immediately discounted even if I could bring in a partner shortly thereafter.

It's a fair point, but you have to take into account the fact that a lot of those people won't join you when you do get investment. It's the same thing as when two founders show up and talk about their rolodex of talent they have waiting to be hired as soon as there's money in the door - it's a useful data point, and certainly something to consider, but a good percentage of those people will typically not work out, or won't like the terms, or will want too much money, etc. So you can't treat it the same as the people who have the team onboard now.

Oh I completely agree and understand just commiserating with the previous poster as I have some of the same concerns but I don't blame YC either.

The bias against solo founders seems to be being mentioned a lot. There's actually a solution to this in Europe - Entrepreneur First (joinef.com), a seed investment programme which you can apply for before you have a team (and even a concrete idea). Most people who come to us as individuals meet their cofounder on the programme and go on to raise some of the largest seed rounds in Europe.

Full disclosure: I work for EF - but if you're experiencing the sole technical founder problem you should check us out.

I just submitted the "I'd like a coffee" thing on the EF site. Looks interesting.

I'd still encourage you to apply -- there's nothing to lose, and definitely no penalty for applying again later if not accepted. Dropbox, Instacart, and Zenefits were all accepted as solo founders -- you can talk about your plans to bring one of them on soon.

This quote caught my eye from the FAQ section of the fellowship page:

Can a single person apply for funding? Yes, but the odds of being accepted are lower. A startup is too much work for one person.

A statement such as "A startup is too much work for one person" seems unusually stark and absolute for a company as progressive as YC. There are always exceptions, as mattkrisiloff as noted below.

There is a reason that solo founder companies are considered exceptional.

I've been running my own solo small business for 8 years now. No need to mince words, it sucks. Trying to do the same, but with a startup? Where rapid growth is the key indicator for whether your business is dead or alive? I honestly don't believe most people are capable.

They are very strongly advising people to get help. It's good advice.

But they use empirical evidence to back up that statement. YC is in the trenches everyday and see how much work it is. It's an observation from past experiences.

...which is why they still accept applications for solo founders, but are straightforward about it knocking you down a peg.

I'm not even sure I could do it alone. It's so much work. My co-founder and I lean on each other for motivation and support. When it's you against the world, a teammate can be invaluable. Particularly when it's looking gloomy. Which it will.

But if you strike out alone, good luck! I can't speak for everyone obviously and I can't generalize and say it only works this way. Just giving my two cents.