My advice to people looking for a "technical cofounder" is always to learn to code—and not in a snarky, "learn to build it yourself" way. Having even a cursory ability to code and a CS50 level understanding of computers will give you enough context to vet the plausibility of ideas, and give you the ability to articulate them in terms that might interest an engineer, as opposed to just saying "An app for investing in real estate."

I spent years doing this, but I would still need / want a technical co-founder for my ideas.

Now I'm a technical manager who can code pretty well, but that's not really all that helpful to launch something legit and complex.

>> My advice to people looking for a "technical cofounder" is always to learn to code—and not in a snarky, "learn to build it yourself" way.

> I spent years doing this, but I would still need / want a technical co-founder for my ideas

There's two reasons why a non-technical founder should learn to code:

1: To get past the "computers can read minds" trap, and to have a high level understanding of what's going on under the hood. (Elon Musk knows an awful lot about how his cars work.)

2: For the same reason CTOs need to understand topics like product-market fit.

Yep - those who can build this stuff don't devalue yourself even in these weird times... Truth is you're going to make WAY more money in the long run by consulting your services out building these platforms vs. taking ownership in a company that may never make it. Payment up-front vs. percentage ownership in an entity that doesn't yet exist is almost always the better option.

Why? Here's the hard truth - 90% of these won't EVER see profit, and you'll likely sink a TON of time (and potentially money) into something that doesn't necessarily ever pay out vs. scratching the "I'm an entrepreneur!" itch.

Doesn't stop fools like myself from circling back to the startup arena though ever few years after refilling the coffers, but it's only healthy to look at this stuff as "gambling" or "fishing" vs. having any real expectations for success.

That all being said - risk is the only way we grow!

Similarly:

Cofounders looking for salesperson to work for commission only.

I think this idea actually has a better chance of working, for a couple reasons:

• There is less risk in starting the relationship. You're not divvying up shares in a company or even paying a fixed salary. The only thing you stand to lose is the time spent figuring out the comp structure

• Founders don't have to open up quite as much about the business, and worry that their idea will be stolen/copied. This is partly because founders seeking salespeople will be further along (alpha version or later), and partly because there's less of a fear that a salesperson will start a copycat company than an engineer (because of skills, not intrinsic honesty).

Salesperson for commission is fine. They either work really hard for the LinkedIn credit and don't sell anything or they crush and sell and make money for you and them. I sold a $10,000 deal for a certain comedy adjacent startup because he said a certain vendor could not be closed. When the founder asked me what a fair commission would be I said mail me a t-shirt, sometimes it's just for fun.

edit: prospect, not vendor

> I think this idea actually has a better chance of working, for a couple reasons:

> • There is less risk in starting the relationship. You're not divvying up shares in a company or even paying a fixed salary. The only thing you stand to lose is the time spent figuring out the comp structure

> • Founders don't have to open up quite as much about the business, and worry that their idea will be stolen/copied. This is partly because founders seeking salespeople will be further along (alpha version or later), and partly because there's less of a fear that a salesperson will start a copycat company than an engineer (because of skills, not intrinsic honesty).

For a salesperson you want to work with, they are making minimum $15k per month. Why are they even going to talk to you when you aren't offering equity or money? Do you think that cold-calling is fun-time?

It's not about cold-calling, it's about monetizing your network. If you have experience and contacts in an industry, and a startup offers you 30% commission on the revenue you bring in, it could be worth the time to see if you can make valuable connections for them. This is especially true if you're not tied to a full-time schedule with them — you could literally do this while still working another job.

> It's not about cold-calling, it's about monetizing your network. If you have experience and contacts in an industry, and a startup offers you 30% commission on the revenue you bring in, it could be worth the time to see if you can make valuable connections for them. This is especially true if you're not tied to a full-time schedule with them — you could literally do this while still working another job.

So, the salesperson should risk losing a contact (and an account) for... nothing?

How do you lose a contact by seeing if they’re interested in a new product/service?

> How do you lose a contact by seeing if they’re interested in a new product/service?

From the perspective of the prospect, the salesperson is making a recommendation. If the startup fails to deliver, then it can cause a lot of problems in the relationship.

Sure, you'd want to make sure you don't over-promise, and of course the buyer would realize they're buying from a startup (and presumably getting a discount as an early adopter). Anyway, my point is just that this sort of matching service could work out in some circumstances, and it is in some ways easier than trying to match founders who are sharing equity.

> Sure, you'd want to make sure you don't over-promise, and of course the buyer would realize they're buying from a startup (and presumably getting a discount as an early adopter). Anyway, my point is just that this sort of matching service could work out in some circumstances, and it is in some ways easier than trying to match founders who are sharing equity.

The point of parent of this thread is that developers tend to receive very unreasonable requests from people wanting to start companies and are not developers, and I am demonstrating that there are other professions that receive the same treatment from the developers.

There is way more risk from the salesperson's side, especially if you're not divvying up shares.

If you're a salesperson looking at either taking a job at an established company with a proven product and a pipeline of leads, or a startup with no traction and no proven product, the only thing that could possibly incentivize you towards the startup would be equity and (potentially) an insane commission rate. With no equity, you're doing a much harder job with less upside and significantly more downside.

Someone who is looking for job flexibility would prefer the startup setup, where you can test the waters and see how it goes. As for the commission rate, I think most early startups would be willing to give a very high rate, especially to a salesperson who can operate independently and who has industry contacts. They wouldn't really care if that person worked full-time or not, so long as they could bring in leads and help close sales. In software, the margins are so high that you could give a very high commission on all of your early sales, knowing that your later/larger sales wouldn't be affected.

nice idea it sounds similar to affiliate marketing things like clickbank

plenty of affiliate marketers that would take it up

Affiliate marketing is a type of promotion, which is entirely different than person-to-person sales.

Look at no-code platforms if you must, but probably you can launch your business with just a website (not app) and an email address.

Yep, its hard to find technical folks who can build things, especially someone else's ideas.