Question: Is the CEO the one co-founder who has to raise the investment?

I don't think coming up with the idea and being technical are relevant reasons to he become the CEO. Having the skill to fund raise is valid, but not enough. Who will lead the company, represent the company to external outcomes, sign off early stage budget decisions, manage the people, focus on the vision and big picture?

Answering these questions might help with the decision.

I do think it will influence the investors decisions if the person pitching them is the CEO (not that it should, but it will).

Two possibilities I see. You become the CEO, but your cofounder keep more equity (if you think it is fair).
Or you are both Co-CEOs. It is unusual and some people might object, but I have a friend who is in this situation of two Co-CEOs and the company is very successful (good funding, good growth, good management up to a good exit on an IPO).

The CEO does whatever needs to be done for the company. Including (especially) all the boring bullshit. So whomever has the energy and enthusiasm to do that should consider doing the role.

And I'd say in the early stages, the more valuable builder should not be the CEO. You want that person to just be building great shit, totally focused on finding product-market fit.

And you can always switch roles at different stages of the company and that can definitely work if you're both mature about it.

It will be assumed that the fundraising founder is the CEO by the investors. In actuality, it won't matter though.

A common pitfall is that founder's egos clash because they both want to be CEO because they view it as a heroic role.. it isn't really. It might be the least fun role for people who love building things.

Seems like you don't have an ego problem. So I'd just have a conversation about what's best for the company at this moment and what the trigger might be for a role change in the future (i.e. close a round and then the roles switch so you can focus on x because you're strongest at y in z situation).

I thought this site was for bootstrappers :D

Titles are often irrelevant. Your title can be a CEO or a janitor in two-man company, doesn't make much difference in practice. You both should be doing whatever it takes to get the company to fly.

If you're up for fancy titles, you can choose one depending on the meeting. Otherwise generic "co-founder" title should be good enough for you both if you want to keep your relationship equal.

From an external optics standpoint, I believe it's more effective for the CEO to be the one raising money. It will raise red flags with investors otherwise. So, I would figure out who the right person is to raise money, and designate them as the CEO. (Note: this is a simplified version of a nuanced message, so take it with a grain of salt.)

The CEO is the person with the vision and the person who directs the company and makes the big decisions / hard choices. Doesn’t matter whether or not they code. They can absolutely code all day if that’s what it takes to move the company in the direction it needs to go— but if they are going to code all day they better have someone doing marketing.

This comment was deleted 4 years ago