You very much dislike Ryan Carson on the basis of a blog post he wrote arguing that you don't necessarily need a co-founder to run a successful company ?
Way to go in writing off a significant portion of the startup community !
Have you ever even spoken to Ryan ? I've met him a few times - he's a genuinely nice guy, passionate about running good businesses which are successful and provide real benefits to his customers.
> You very much dislike Ryan Carson on the basis of a blog post he wrote arguing that you don't necessarily need a co-founder to run a successful company ?
Not quite. I don't believe it's necessary to have a co-founder to run a successful company. I agree completely with the headline. But the primary arguments for why this was done were to maintain equity and control. It came off as though he wasn't sharing equity with early employees and wanted to keep an extraordinary level of equity. It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person and exactly 1 person benefits. Additionally, it felt like there was an innate distrust in all employees and potential business partners, and a need to assert dominance and complete control. What kind of professional relationships do you have to suffer through before the only thing you are interested in is total ownership? A company should be much more than a bunch of people being paid to do your bidding, and that's what I took away from the post.
> Have you ever even spoken to Ryan ? I've met him a few times - he's a genuinely nice guy, passionate about running good businesses which are successful and provide real benefits to his customers.
No I haven't, but I'm not sure I see it. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's not a nice guy (I have no idea), but I disagree strongly with some of his views from a leadership role, and it feels to me there are other motives than just making a great product and providing benefits to customers.
This statement is pure conjecture on your part and is therefore invalid:
> It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person
> and exactly 1 person benefits. Additionally, it felt like there was an innate distrust
> in all employees and potential business partners, and a need to assert dominance and
> complete control.
Treehouse is my fourth company. I sold two and one failed. I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition". Treehouse is the most meaningful thing I've ever done and probably will ever do. I'm fortunate to live comfortable and to be doing something that I passionately believe in. Why would I engineer the company for a sale?
Happy to battle it out with commenters on facts but your conjectures about my motivations for structuring Treehouse are silly unless you bother to ask me first.
My reasoning is based on what appear to be, to me, on the surface, primarily selfish reasons for wanting to be the sole founder. As I observed when this blog post was originally made, it seems to me that you're setting up a situation where you'd almost exclusively benefit if the company succeeds (or gets acquired). This certainly wouldn't inspire confidence in me if I were looking for a new startup, so I would assume others would feel the same way. Given that it looks like there's very little equity sharing, I'd expect a very high salary and potentially turnover given that there isn't long-term incentives, and I don't, as an outsider, see long-term plans for building something huge. I'd be wary, to say the least, but that's me.
Maybe I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, so while it may be a conjecture, it may also be true.
Way to go in writing off a significant portion of the startup community !
Have you ever even spoken to Ryan ? I've met him a few times - he's a genuinely nice guy, passionate about running good businesses which are successful and provide real benefits to his customers.