Even with co-founders, one of you is still the CEO.

You need an executive function to set direction and unblock stupid territory squabbles. Someone whose decisions are final. If you have two actual CEOs, you don’t have that.

Someone has to be 51+% either way..

HBR has an interesting, recent article about why, in some cases, it might be better to have two CEOs: https://hbr.org/2022/07/is-it-time-to-consider-co-ceos

Good read.

The one time I've seen this situation has been as a board member of a small non-profit. This was ages ago but, as I recall, there were two well-qualified candidates for an editor-in-chief position. It seemed a case where if we appointed one, the other would walk. So we made them co-editors and it didn't go well.

But I can imagine circumstances when it can work with the right people and circumstances.

Exactly.. probably instead of ending up with 1 happy person and the other walking, you ended up with 2 unhappy people and both eventually walking!

VC also strongly suggests that it is made clear one person is the CEO, so when push comes shove, some one can make a decision and things can be resolved. I remembered reading it is better to have 51/49 rather than 50/50 equity for that reason. Though to be honest I am not sure if I read that in the “good advices you should follow” or the “shitty toxic advices you should avoid”. Hard to differentiate sometimes.