That 65% co-founder conflict stat is wild, but it tracks with what I've seen. People underestimate how much pressure amplifies every tiny disagreement about vision or equity splits. The smartest move is having those brutal conversations super early, not when you're already drowning.
Yes and spend a lot of time diligently picking the person you want to build your company with. In the end you will be "married" to this person for multiple years. It always wonders me when people met their Co-founders via these matching portals or online. I would also get multiple work & personal references on the person I'd start a company with. Ideally you have worked with that person before, clearly know how they react under pressure and also know the weaknesses of them.
I am coaching a founder right now going through co-founder breakup. It definitely resembles a relationship breakup as well. And the fear of having to face everything solo now. What’s your advice for founders that might be going through this?
The thing worth telling your founder: the fear of doing it alone is usually louder than the reality. What actually needs handling first is the equity and the vesting, because that's the part that becomes unfixable and blocks the next raise. The emotional recovery has time. The cap table doesn't.
This hits too close. Every time I’ve seen a company fold, the external story was “competition”.. but the inside story was fatigue, drift, or two founders quietly giving up on each other. Your framing makes it brutally clear, and honest. 🙏
"Markets just give us a cleaner excuse" is the line. Every bankruptcy filing I read names a competitor, because a competitor is blameless and an internal decision has a name attached to it.
This is a brilliant breakdown of the suicide vs. homicide dynamic. In my experience at a seed startup where product-market fit was lacking and the runway was running low, I saw this play out.
As the cash dwindled, the founder, who claimed to be against yes-men, began exclusively promoting them. Many team members saw through this and it affected employee morale. Several started looking for other job opportunities. It turned the company into a private club for his ego, sponsored by investor capital. A key lesson for founders: actively protect dissenting voices, it is a survival mechanism. My second Substack article was a deep dive on this experience.
Promoting yes-men as the runway shortens is a pattern I see constantly, and I think it's structural rather than ego. Once there's no margin for a wrong call, dissent stops looking like insurance and starts looking like delay. Which is exactly backwards, and by then nobody can say so.
The framing is right and it's built on a software capital model, which is why the advice breaks when you move it.
Call it a capital-model mismatch. In SaaS your costs are mostly people, and people can be cut on two weeks' notice, so burn is a dial you control and persistence really is the variable that decides who survives. In physical goods your capital is committed forward and illiquid. The MOQ was set by a co-packer, the terms were set by a retailer at 60 or 90 days, and the money is already in a warehouse. You can want it back as hard as you like.
So "don't give up too early" is good advice under one capital model and dangerous under the other. The founders I've studied who wound down deliberately, while there was still cash to pay severance, made the better decision than the ones who kept pushing until the choice was made for them. Persistence past the point where the model works doesn't save the company. It just decides who eats the loss.
Most startup advice is written by people whose costs were payroll. Worth checking whose capital model you're borrowing from before you take it.
This really resonates, especially the point that running out of cash is a symptom rather than the cause. Shifting the focus to operational discipline and runway extension is exactly where sustainable growth gets built. TCLM explores that next layer in a B2B context—how trade credit terms, payment timing, and working capital management directly determine how long that runway really is. It offers practical insights for founders and finance leaders looking to strengthen that financial foundation.
That 65% co-founder conflict stat is wild, but it tracks with what I've seen. People underestimate how much pressure amplifies every tiny disagreement about vision or equity splits. The smartest move is having those brutal conversations super early, not when you're already drowning.
Yes and spend a lot of time diligently picking the person you want to build your company with. In the end you will be "married" to this person for multiple years. It always wonders me when people met their Co-founders via these matching portals or online. I would also get multiple work & personal references on the person I'd start a company with. Ideally you have worked with that person before, clearly know how they react under pressure and also know the weaknesses of them.
I am coaching a founder right now going through co-founder breakup. It definitely resembles a relationship breakup as well. And the fear of having to face everything solo now. What’s your advice for founders that might be going through this?
The thing worth telling your founder: the fear of doing it alone is usually louder than the reality. What actually needs handling first is the equity and the vesting, because that's the part that becomes unfixable and blocks the next raise. The emotional recovery has time. The cap table doesn't.
This hits too close. Every time I’ve seen a company fold, the external story was “competition”.. but the inside story was fatigue, drift, or two founders quietly giving up on each other. Your framing makes it brutally clear, and honest. 🙏
100% agreed. Startups also usually don't die publicly or loud. They die quietly because of internal conflicts.
Yep- the real autopsy is almost always internal. Markets just give us a cleaner excuse.
"Markets just give us a cleaner excuse" is the line. Every bankruptcy filing I read names a competitor, because a competitor is blameless and an internal decision has a name attached to it.
“Stay Focused and Commit Fully: Don’t try to run two companies at once, and don’t treat your startup like a side hustle.”
it seems like a lot of people have had to learn this one the hard way.
great post ty.
Sure, happy to share some hard lessons learned on my side. Maybe it helps someone to avoid those! :)
🔥🔥 absolutely!
This is a brilliant breakdown of the suicide vs. homicide dynamic. In my experience at a seed startup where product-market fit was lacking and the runway was running low, I saw this play out.
As the cash dwindled, the founder, who claimed to be against yes-men, began exclusively promoting them. Many team members saw through this and it affected employee morale. Several started looking for other job opportunities. It turned the company into a private club for his ego, sponsored by investor capital. A key lesson for founders: actively protect dissenting voices, it is a survival mechanism. My second Substack article was a deep dive on this experience.
Promoting yes-men as the runway shortens is a pattern I see constantly, and I think it's structural rather than ego. Once there's no margin for a wrong call, dissent stops looking like insurance and starts looking like delay. Which is exactly backwards, and by then nobody can say so.
The framing is right and it's built on a software capital model, which is why the advice breaks when you move it.
Call it a capital-model mismatch. In SaaS your costs are mostly people, and people can be cut on two weeks' notice, so burn is a dial you control and persistence really is the variable that decides who survives. In physical goods your capital is committed forward and illiquid. The MOQ was set by a co-packer, the terms were set by a retailer at 60 or 90 days, and the money is already in a warehouse. You can want it back as hard as you like.
So "don't give up too early" is good advice under one capital model and dangerous under the other. The founders I've studied who wound down deliberately, while there was still cash to pay severance, made the better decision than the ones who kept pushing until the choice was made for them. Persistence past the point where the model works doesn't save the company. It just decides who eats the loss.
Most startup advice is written by people whose costs were payroll. Worth checking whose capital model you're borrowing from before you take it.
Startups don’t die because they run out of money.
They die because the founders give up.
This really resonates, especially the point that running out of cash is a symptom rather than the cause. Shifting the focus to operational discipline and runway extension is exactly where sustainable growth gets built. TCLM explores that next layer in a B2B context—how trade credit terms, payment timing, and working capital management directly determine how long that runway really is. It offers practical insights for founders and finance leaders looking to strengthen that financial foundation.
(It’s free)- https://tradecredit.substack.com/
The point about startups commiting suicide is profound. Perhaps this also highlights internal structural, even pedagogical, issues.
This article repeats the same thing multiple times. Keep focused on the subject, keep it short and don't use AI to pad content.