I don't think the experience is necessary. He wants to found a company not be an excellent engineer. That means as long as he can get a prototype out, it doesn't matter if it's all spaghetti code. It's startup code and it will be shitty. He can then hopefully raise money and hire people with at least a few years experience to build things out properly (hopefully).

I've seen successful startups started by people who could barely code or taught themselves to code to build the business just like the OP is describing. Sure, the code is shitty and there's no architecture, but once you're making money, who cares? This explains the shitty code found at most startups, but if it's temporary and a way to get somewhere, I definitely see its benefits. If this was a proper system, meant to live on for years, that's different. Hopefully the OP will have enough wisdom to realize when it's time to switch between the two mindsets. Most startup CEOs don't (even if they started out like the OP because they quickly get disconnected from engineering), and that's the real problem, IMO, but by then you've already started a company and raised money.