I take a very simple perspective on this "single founder aversion".
If some investor is going to ignore my traction and business just because I achieved it without signing on a token co-founder, then frankly it is their loss and I won't hesitate to politely tell them that. By definition getting to the same results without co-founders requires a much higher level of ability than if being part of a "collective". Any investor failing to recognize that is going to miss out some of the best deals and that is really their problem.
The main focus should be on pleasing customers and partners and if you do that right, eventually the right investors come along (with better terms too). Much better approach than to structure your company solely to please investors and forget what the business is all about.
You might even end up with a business making money and no investors to answer to (or at least investors not having significant control over you). What a terrible thing!
PS: Quite a few people promoted to "co-founders" should really be employees with accountability for specific tasks and projects, not an open-ended license to call the shots.
"By definition getting to the same results without co-founders requires a much higher level of ability than if being part of a 'collective'"
I think in order for this to be true, you'd have to assume that the team as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is not always the case with cofounders.
In general, though, I agree with you. Results speak for themselves; build a business for customers, not investors.
By definition getting to the same results without co-founders requires a much higher level of ability
I don't think this is a compelling argument--investors don't care about your ability, they care about your company's results. If this is true, then co-founders are indeed a better bet.
Every screening mechanism is imperfect. Once everyone starts requiring co-founders, then there's a lot of value as an angel to being willing to consider single founders. But that doesn't mean investors who avoid single founders are wrong to worry.
If some investor is going to ignore my traction and business just because I achieved it without signing on a token co-founder, then frankly it is their loss and I won't hesitate to politely tell them that. By definition getting to the same results without co-founders requires a much higher level of ability than if being part of a "collective". Any investor failing to recognize that is going to miss out some of the best deals and that is really their problem.
The main focus should be on pleasing customers and partners and if you do that right, eventually the right investors come along (with better terms too). Much better approach than to structure your company solely to please investors and forget what the business is all about.
You might even end up with a business making money and no investors to answer to (or at least investors not having significant control over you). What a terrible thing!
PS: Quite a few people promoted to "co-founders" should really be employees with accountability for specific tasks and projects, not an open-ended license to call the shots.