Can’t recall hearing that. You might be interested in a study of this topic.

More than 10,000 completed the survey. The researchers narrowed their focus to projects seeking a meaningful amount of funding–the kind that could be used to start a real business, and wound up with 3,526 businesses started with either a single founder or two or more partners.

Consistent with investors’ bias toward teams rather than solo founders (and perhaps the fact that multiple people have more friends and family members than one), they found that companies with multiple founders were able to raise more money than those headed by a solo entrepreneur. You might think this would give founding teams an advantage over single founders, but you’d be wrong. Despite starting off with a smaller stake, companies with a single founder were more likely to still be in business than those with two or more. And though teams may have been able to raise more money initially than single entrepreneurs, companies with only one founder also saw higher revenue than those with two or more.

-- A Study of 3,526 Companies Shows 1 Decision Makes Startups More Successful. Most Founders Do the Opposite. Research from Wharton and NYU proves that a common belief about starting a business is completely wrong.

What I think about it is people partner for all the wrong reasons. You’ll read all sorts of horror stories posted about partnerships-gone-bad. Nice to see exactly opposite of reality keeps becoming the popular upvoted best practices sooner or later.

Splitting equity ‘halfsies’ to make deadlock the default. Due diligence no more thorough than “Hey, you wanna?” Pinky-swear agreements, nothing in writing. I swear the only question people ask seems to be, “Would I get high with these guys, or not?”

I love you guys.