I know pg is an advocate of 2+ founder teams, and that there are some arguments in favor of it, and I respect his experience, but in my mind and from what I've observed in life this post is like a poster boy example for why the ideal is to have only 1 founder.
Just start with 1 founder, with 100% equity. Then incrementally grow it out from there, see if you get traction, etc. If you need to raise cash, exchange it for equity but still retain as much equity and control as you can. It's ideal to always have a single "benevolent dictator" who has final say in all things, for cases exactly like this. As soon as you start bringing in a 2nd person, a 3rd, more equity partners, especially big ones like in this case, all kinds of seemingly intractable problems can arise.
Can 2+ founder/partner startups work? Of course. But this situation is a classic example of what can go wrong with it.
I think you may both be right. Would pg fund this team, or would he be picking 2+ teams after filtering out all the ones that don't work together well?
Just start with 1 founder, with 100% equity. Then incrementally grow it out from there, see if you get traction, etc. If you need to raise cash, exchange it for equity but still retain as much equity and control as you can. It's ideal to always have a single "benevolent dictator" who has final say in all things, for cases exactly like this. As soon as you start bringing in a 2nd person, a 3rd, more equity partners, especially big ones like in this case, all kinds of seemingly intractable problems can arise.
Can 2+ founder/partner startups work? Of course. But this situation is a classic example of what can go wrong with it.