"In reality, having a marketable and economically viable idea is the key to founding a successful business."

That's not 100% true. I mean, it is important, but it's not the one and only key. There's more to it than that. Here's a list of marketable and economically viable ideas that won't lead most people reading this comment have a successful business out of them. http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html People are more important than ideas.

I'm sorry my posts came off as my passion is not wanting to work in a large company. I don't work in a large company. My passion is to change the world, after becoming ramen profitable. If I had to pick between a business that makes lots of money but isn't fullfilling or a business that makes less money but has a shot at changing the world, I'd pick the latter. I don't know if this answers your question.

You are right that people who like sitting around together may be unable to come up with a viable, marketable idea and then become successful startup founders. It's not easy to generate ideas. It's hard to be a startup founder.

But you also may be presumptuous if you think I haven't found a problem or started solving it. And I may be presumptuous if I think you haven't found a problem or starting solving it too. I want to listen to other people's ideas. Valuable ideas can be risky or frightening enough that you don't even know you have them. Bouncing ideas with someone else can help them surface.

If I had to make one assumption, it'd be that people who like sitting around together, and like each other, and are exceptional, are more likely to come up with a viable, marketable idea and then become successful startup founders than people who don't like each other and aren't exceptional. If this "success" quality can be put into words better, similar to being formidable, I'm open to a definition.

One problem with people coming because they are interested in a problem you are solving is that they also leave when the solution doesn't work. People who stick together are more likely to stick with a solution longer. They are also more likely to be open to changing the idea.

I saw this problem with people who weren't friends first. They wouldn't be in sync. They would refuse to switch ideas.

This may be a very simplistic reasoning, but if you go from a single founder to two, you potentially double your growth rate. Or you at least double your productivity. Because now there are two people working to make some big tech breakthrough and get that initial toehold of users, assuming they can work together.

It seems to me growth rate is more important than equity. With growth rate you can get rich enough to not have to work again. With double the equity but no growth you don't.