I've been mentoring startup founders for three years now, and the biggest pattern I see is the solo founder vs co-founder decision. Some argue that going solo keeps decision-making fast and equity clean, but I've watched teams where a technical co-founder and a sales co-founder balanced each other out brilliantly. Yet I've also seen co-founder breakups that killed promising ventures before they launched. Given that most startups fail from execution issues rather than idea quality, doesn't having a committed co-founder with complementary skills meaningfully increase your odds of surviving the early chaos? Or does the added complexity of shared vision, equity splits, and communication overhead actually slow you down?