I don't have a co-founder. I did have one once but there was constant conflict about the product vision.

I can do everything myself and I don't want to run an empire so why give half the company away because someone else says I need a co-founder?

Appears to exhibit selection bias - what if there is a disproportionately large number of single-founder companies, which fail at a much higher rate than those with 2 or more?

The numbers are interesting, but very misleading. It still doesn't answer whether it's statistically wise to invest in a single-founder company, or help a founder decide how many cofounders they should try to get onboard.

If the strongest conclusion possible here is "Hey there's still hope" then we didn't need all these charts for that sentiment.

The myth is: you can't build a startup with one founder. But who started this myth?

What PG said was: a single founder is a major reason for startup failure. So it is not recommended.

What this article concludes is: plenty of successful startups are single-founder. They don't provide any evidence on whether it is a major cause of failure.

YC does fund single-founder startups. But they will recommend you get a co-founder.