That may be a strike against being a single founder, but it seems like a strike in favour of single-founder startups: Because they don't have "talent acquisition" as an exit option, they're more likely to avoid dying.
More likely to run to $0 and shut down entirely, vs. a talent acquisition (which always looks better than a shut down, and has a chance of returning a tiny bit of capital to angels who invested early)?
Sounds like another point in favor of multi-founder startups. I wouldn't consider even a talent acquisition to be "dying" if the founders end up happy about it.
