My First Million
The best business ideas come from noticing what's working and doing it better, faster, or for a different audience.
Compromise is fundamentally about creating lose-lose outcomes and correlates strongly with mediocrity
The Reasoning
Compromise by definition requires both parties to give up something they value, creating resentment and suboptimal solutions, whereas collaboration can create solutions better than either party originally envisioned
What Needs to Be True
- Both parties must have valuable but different contributions
- Time and trust must be invested to find optimal blends
- Parties must be willing to move beyond 50/50 thinking
- There must be potential for synergistic solutions
Counterargument
Sometimes compromise is necessary for speed, relationships require give-and-take, and perfect solutions aren't always possible with real constraints
What Would Change This View
Evidence that forced compromise leads to better long-term outcomes than collaborative solution-finding, or scenarios where time constraints make compromise the only viable option
Implications for Builders
Don't accept 50/50 solutions as the goal
Invest time upfront to understand all parties' real contributions
Look for asymmetric combinations that create superior outcomes
Measure success by solution quality, not perceived fairness
Example Application
“Instead of compromising on a startup equity split (50/50), co-founders discuss actual contributions: one brings 90% of the technical innovation, the other brings 10% critical market insight. The 90/10 split creates better incentive alignment than 50/50 compromise.”