Startups are irrational, and it's because of the people starting them.
If founders were rational beings, they wouldn't be starting companies. Evidence overwhelmingly points to that fact that most companies fail, and you need to put a ton of skin in the game and probably sacrifice things like wellness and happiness along the way to see an outcome.*
*Clarification: while I think "work til you drop" is an outdated way of thinking about startups and there is a way to achieve what feels like balance, you are probably still sacrificing a lot before you can truly figure out what that looks like for you. Especially for first time founders.
But the thing I find particularly interesting is that persistent motif of duality as a founder.
A lot of it depends on context, but here are some of the things I find myself constantly wrestling with:
1. "We will win" vs. "We don't know shit"
Founders need irrational self-belief for things to work, and this is something I've always struggled with. To me this means overprojecting confidence - exuding it even - in order to attract investment, talent, etc.
But to me there's also this feeling of "wow we're just getting started - we don't know shit" that's exciting to find at the turn of every corner. I often find that feeling this way is a good indicator that you're quickly moving in the right track towards truth.
The way I've reconciled this is "We don't know shit, but I'm confident that we can figure it out". This framing has helped me because I know it's a never ending journey.
At $100k ARR you will certain problems to solve in order to get to $1M. At $1M what you'll need to learn & figure out will be different to get to $10M. This framing allows me to feel comfortable about what we don't know yet, and know that it's not incompatible with this burning desire to win.
2. "We're not moving fast enough" vs. "We need higher quality"
This one's interesting because it assumes that there is an inherent tradeoff of speed vs. quality.
I've found that if I'm thinking about things on the timescale of 1 day or 1 week, this is true. But if I'm thinking about things in terms of months or quarters, this quickly becomes a myth.
The reason is that doing things the right way ultimately saves you more time down the road. Bad product features that don't actually solve customer problems lead to more back and forth and time lost. Bad code that cuts corners will need to be re-written or deleted eventually.
Realizing this has made me appreciate the "measure twice, cut once" philosophy so much more. It's also made me appreciate a skill and "feeling" that I find to be rare but quite valuable - people who are really good at coming up with 80% solutions that are robust and will just work.
I forget this sometimes, but the end goal is outcomes not output. And if that's what you're optimizing for, you'll find that speed & quality are actually extremely aligned.
Closing
I think it's perfectly normal to feel these things all the time. And at this point, I've found myself on both ends of the spectrum so many times that I think it's possible that both can be true.
Startups are irrational, and that's the beauty of it.