Suggest you remove "CEO" from your title.
Having that word in your title has one, and only one, positive effect your co founders are agreeing that you are the leader - and that increases your teams efficiency in the race to develop your prototype.
But the negatives are far too many.
When investors think of the word CEO, what typically comes to their mind is a person experienced in taking companies from the startup stage to the exit stage. Furthermore, a having a CEO position filled indicates to them that a significant funding round is in place.
If you are thinking that by giving yourself that title today you are positioning yourself for being the CEO post-funding, that is a false assumption. What is more likely is that at some stage in the companys evolution, an outsider will be better suited to take the company to the next level.
Of course, there are many, many exceptions such as Dell, Bezos, etc. But rather than claim the CEO title at the onset, and subject yourself and future CEO candidates to unnecessary discomfort, (we are seeking a CEO versus we are seeking to replace our CEO), let your funding stockholders make that decision.
Whats most important is that your baby gets funded avoid all barriers to that critical event.
So in that case what do you think of "President" or "Supreme Allied Commander"? Pros and cons I guess.
Having that word in your title has one, and only one, positive effect your co founders are agreeing that you are the leader - and that increases your teams efficiency in the race to develop your prototype.
But the negatives are far too many.
When investors think of the word CEO, what typically comes to their mind is a person experienced in taking companies from the startup stage to the exit stage. Furthermore, a having a CEO position filled indicates to them that a significant funding round is in place.
If you are thinking that by giving yourself that title today you are positioning yourself for being the CEO post-funding, that is a false assumption. What is more likely is that at some stage in the companys evolution, an outsider will be better suited to take the company to the next level.
Of course, there are many, many exceptions such as Dell, Bezos, etc. But rather than claim the CEO title at the onset, and subject yourself and future CEO candidates to unnecessary discomfort (we are seeking a CEO versus we are seeking to replace our CEO), let your funding stockholders make that decision.
Whats most important is that your baby gets funded avoid all barriers to that critical event.
As for co-founder - I think it sounds a bit weak. Even if there are more than one founder, they can all be called Founder. Vice President's of other companies aren't called Co-Vice Presidents.
Co-founder is a well accepted and used title. And like you say, co-vice presidents isn't and thus one is used and the other isn't.
Right now we're going with:
CEO, Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
I can't decide if I like this or not, but I've seen it in quite a few places.
What do you write on your business cards?
My partner: chief technology officer / co-founder
-Zaid