Burn the Ships - by Frank Odom - Off-Square (AI + VC)

Off-Square (AI + VC)

SubscribeSign in

Burn the Ships<br>An attempt to analyze founder psychology through the lens of game theory.

Frank Odom<br>May 24, 2026

Share

Originally published at fkodom.com on May 24, 2026.

0:00

-13:54

Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade.

In 1519, Hernán Cortés landed on the Mexican coast with about 500 men and eleven ships. Before marching inland to take on the Aztec Empire, he scuttled all but one of them. The story is usually told as motivational theater, a man with the spine to bet everything on a single roll. By eliminating retreat as an option, he changed the payoff matrix that every soldier under his command was solving. Cowardice and desertion were no longer strategies for his soldiers. The only rational move was to fight as hard as possible.<br>Avinash Dixit makes a version of this point in The Art of Strategy, and he traces the same pattern through Xenophon fighting with his back to an impassable ravine, William the Conqueror burning his fleet at Pevensey, and the Roman army making it a capital offense to fall behind in an attack. The mechanism is identical in every case. An advancing line is a coordination problem. A single soldier who hangs back slightly improves his personal odds of survival without meaningfully reducing the chance that his side wins. If everyone reasons that way, the attack collapses into a retreat. Commanders who can credibly remove the retreat option remove the bad equilibrium along with it.<br>The same mechanism describes, almost perfectly, what investors are actually looking for when they talk about a “missionary” founder.<br>Thanks for reading Off-Square! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

Subscribe

The Cortés Founder

When external conditions are good, the math is easy for everyone involved in a startup. Demand is strong, the team is capable, capital is available, no competitor is breathing down the neck. The dominant strategy for the founder, the cofounders, and the early employees is to work hard and ride the upside. This is the equivalent of the army that is already winning. Every soldier wants to charge.<br>These ideal conditions can quickly fall apart for most startups.<br>a pipeline stalls

a competitor raises a war chest

a key hire quits

the macro environment turns

When these conditions compound, every individual at the company has an alternative that is rationalizable. The founder can wind the company down and take a senior role at a larger one. Cofounders can negotiate a soft landing. Senior engineers can interview anywhere. The expected value of “give up now” can quickly become competitive with the expected value of “keep pushing,” and the army is at risk of becoming a retreat.<br>A missionary founder is one for whom this second calculation does not work, because the alternatives have been removed from the matrix. Either the founder genuinely cannot imagine doing something else, or the consequences of stopping are so personally unacceptable that stopping is not on the table. The structural result is the same as Cortés on the beach: Quitting is a dominated strategy, the team reads this and updates its own expectations, and investors read this and write the check.<br>This is the part that gets lost in the standard pitch about “passion” and “drive.” The premium is not for the personality. It is for the structural property of having no exit. Two founders with identical résumés and identical products are not equally good bets if one of them has a credible alternative and the other does not. The one without an alternative will outwork the other on the marginal Tuesday at 11 p.m. when the demo is broken, and over a five-year company-building cycle, those marginal Tuesdays compound into the entire delta.

Conviction vs Desperation

Most founders arrive at this property from one of two directions, or a linear combination of them.<br>Conviction. The founder is so deeply committed to a particular technical or commercial worldview that abandoning it would feel worse than failing at it. Elon Musk and SpaceX is the canonical example. Several times during the 2008 era, the rational play was to let SpaceX die quietly and walk away with the PayPal money. Musk slept on the factory floor and put the last of his liquid net worth into the next launch. The framing inside his head was not “this venture has positive expected value.” It was “humanity needs to be multiplanetary, and I happen to be the person doing this.” That is a worldview, not a strategy, and it is not subject to revision when the bank account gets thin.

Desperation. The cost of failure is severe enough that the founder will not let it happen. For most first-time founders, this looks like some mix of personal financial exposure, public embarrassment in front of former colleagues, the prospect of laying off people they recruited and care about, and the reputational hit of carrying a visible failure into the next decade...