Recommend a Founder for YC
blog.ycombinator.com
blog.ycombinator.com
I mention that because the pitch says:
"We know that great founders can come from anywhere — any city, school, country or background"
But the application form says:
"If we invest in you, your group is expected to move to the Bay Area for June–Aug 2017."
There's a bit of a disconnect, and I'm curious how it's reconciled.
Also appears they have done away with the fellowship, which did not require a fellow to relocate.
I know this may be challenging in some situations, but I doubt YC could offer the same value remotely. For starters, many of the talks given off the record would never happen if they were being streamed and could easily be recorded. You also would have less interaction with fellow batchmates, be less involved in group office hours, and a myriad of other small details that come from being present.
For remote to work (at YC or in the workplace) I believe it needs to be fostered and prioritized, and YC as it is now was never built around making remote work. If that is ever going to work I suspect an entire batch would need to be remote and the entire experience redesigned for that batch, and that doesn't appear to be a priority for YC.
It feels to me that there's an incredible untapped potential of talent that simply can not relocate or even come to an office on a regular basis (due to disability, economic reasons, visa status, age, family obligations, etc).
If we can unlock that potential then there is so much more we can do as a society.
If anyone at YC (or anyone else) is interested in talking, please reach out.
The question to me is this: can we make it better for people who can't be there? (I.e., raise the foundation, not debate the ceiling.)
I hope some of the YC team reads this comment and takes heed.
1) Reduce your burn rate. 2) Save up enough money to live off of for a year. 3) Bootstrap your startup off your savings.
I am going to make a guess that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure.
Getting funding, from YC or elsewhere, has a way of changing your startup in a way that makes it much less likely to succeed. They have said so in fact -- they want you to fail quickly.
That doesn't make you more likely to fail though. Quite the opposite on the long run.
You aren't in the business of solving problems and making money anymore but how to inflate share price as quickly as possible by focusing on KPI that will get other suckers wet.
Actually, it does. They want you to fail quickly so they can (in)validate your initial business plan. But business plans for start ups that don't fail quickly often evolve through one or more pivots.
For example, see slack and twitter.
There are two ways of thinking about a problem. And they both are important:
1) Why wouldn't this work? 2) How can we make it work?
When you get funding, it's mostly about 1 and not so much about 2.
I am not sure that Instagram would have survived receiving funding.
https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.1...
Another aspect of it that I don't really want to go into right now... when an outsider looks at your company, they don't really understand what's going on. But they do have a bunch of rules of thumb that they like. They may or may not apply to your company. But in their minds, you're a bad company if you do not adhere to them.
VCs admit to thinking this way. They call it "pattern matching."
Some modification to my earlier statement is accurate. :-) Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to iterate on it. If you're interested, you'll have to discover it yourself.
What's your definition of "strongest"? In terms of success measured by exit size, it's empirically untrue. Perhaps if you are measuring by failure rate, but even then, I doubt it.
FWIW, it can't be empirically true either. :-)
What I am saying is that starting off one's journey by taking money or going through an accelerator enters you into an efficient machine for building a startup in a specific way.
From what I have observed, entering this path often traps founders into thinking this is the one true way to build a startup. In reality, the paths to product-market fit are unknown. You often discover them through serendipity. Being rigid can cause you to miss them.
I am not saying a startup should never take money. Once a startup has discovered their magic, i.e. achieved product-market fit, then taking money and using it to scale is the right way to go.
My advice, if you can do it, would be to start now rather than saving up to give yourself a year of cash in the bank. It's harder but that's not always a bad thing.
To me YC was a largely branding move. It's fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed".
Too many people in the industry are so caught up with being a "Startup" that they forget that they are just like any other "Businesses" but with far less control over your own destiny and even far less likely to win much money than working at a large company where you have high probability of becoming a millionaire in the same amount of time you spent on your startup.
People are biased and self select their dumb luck as insight that gives them an edge which obviously does not translate or is repeatable-take a look at the graveyard, techcrunch won't get any views reporting anything but hyped up PR pieces.
>To me YC was a largely branding move. It's fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed".
Reply to the actual comment instead of setting up a strawman. And, you may want to touch on the other point the parent made, namely incentives being misaligned between YC and startups. Indignation isn't doing the brand any good.
Regardless, with every batch that graduates YC, you are effectively splitting the amount of time Partners and Mentors can dedicate to each individual company by an even greater amount. And while YC has added new Partners and Mentors, I'm not convinced that your supply of expertise is growing fast enough to meet the demand that you are creating with each new batch. Then again, maybe you are. I'm sure my perspective isn't the greatest.
I don't want to seem overly-critical, I'm still a fan of YC and I continue to recommend it, but I'm not sure the class of '17 will get the same value that the class of '07 did.
(I have no horse in this race - no affiliation with YC or YC funded companies)
My point is this: for every person added to a network of individuals, the opportunity to create strong bonds with each person in the network is reduced, even while the value and strength of the network itself is increased.
A larger network means more opinions, more expertise and more connections (every person added to the network brings their own network of connections). Thus making the network more valuable to each individual member. However, once networks reach a certain size, that value is often extrapolated indirectly. Someone asks someone else to ask a third person a favor, because the second person knows the third better than the first. Thus, the likelihood or ability for each member to form strong relationships with everyone, or the more VIP members of the network, decreases.
This not a knock on YC or the current cohort. I'm a big fan of YC and I'm fully confident the W17 class is as quality as every other class that's gone through, but network dynamics shift as quantity increases.
1) the batch sizes might have something to do with it i.e. larger batch sizes don't foster the same community feel as smaller ones. I think maybe ~20 might be the sweet spot.
2) Current leaders don't have as much of a "visionary/thoughtleader/mentor" feel that pg used to. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be super nice and relatable, but don't give off the same vibe of wisdom/hard core technical skills.
hth
(1) YC has a bias against solo founders; research shows this is not a signal of future success and to me it feels like I'm giving up 17-53.5% of a venture just to get in; YC gets 7% of any venture it funds and YC requires a cofounder have at least 10% equity, but suggest going 50/50.
(2) I personally don't agree with YC doing R&D and feel like this is YC admitting the yield it's getting from backing startups is under performing it doing its own thing, which to me is not a good signal.
(3) Majority of YC's billion dollar startups have all gone through a single VC; why not just deal with them directly?
(4) YC should focus on enabling mentors to expand it's deal flow.
(5) YC should have campus within 60-miles of the Bay Area with free housing, food, super-speed internet, etc. so startups don't have to spend the funds on commodities like this and are able to focus on growing. Free healthcare for a year for founders would be impressive too.
(7) I'm opinionated, largely do startups to learn, not be the next billionaire; personally, done more startups than 99% of founders, do it full-time, and have spent 15-mins plus mentoring 1000s of founders.
(8) YC should set the precedent for making the Bay Area not be the center of the universe for startups.
(9) I miss PG.
__
(Above are just a few of the reasons.)
My guess is that my pitches might be too off the wall or they have a bias against anonymous users. Or more likely, my pitch is not a good fit for YC. Who knows, as anyone that applies knows, they do not say why they decline to interview a given founder or fund them, and no one really should expect a reason for why either, that simply is unreasonable.
As for why I would apply, I am positive that I would get more value out of it than what they are taking, that I would provide a return on their investment, I love doing startups, and enjoy being around talented founders. Most of all, given I would be taking on funding, it would force me to change the way I normally fund & run startups; that being I normal do not have the objective of selling the startup or being a multi billion dollar company.
As for VCs, while I do not have anything against them and believe they provide value based on a well defined situation, I prefer to focus on doing startups, not building businesses; meaning all of my startups make money while I am working on them, when I am done, I move on to the next startup, since I value my time more than the money I would make finding a buyer, dealing with all the due diligence requests, and supporting the handoff too.
BUT - if you're going to take $100K Angel from someone - who would you prefer it to be?
YC is still the top. You get 'some brand', 'access to a lot of investors' - and some residual benefits from network access.
That's more than you get with most entities.
So if you're not 'hooked up' into investor networks, or are from an area that does not have good 'startup zen' - then YC is still probably the top choice.
And FYI I have no specific love for YC, and not relationship to them. And yes - though I think they are pretty good, I also think they aren possibly a little 'over-hyped', but that's not their fault. (Please don't ban me :) )
This is probably a good thing given that the original value proposition (accelerating web startups) makes zero sense today.
Twelve years ago there were an enormous number of people connected to the web but not much good content. The network was primed for hyper virality, so the only viable strategies were to raise huge amounts of money on a deck or an MVP, or else take on five cofounders (and later fire three of them). Any other strategy and you'd get completely destroyed.
These days this is no longer the case. The web is already saturated with content, so there is zero risk of having a competitor's site go super viral overnight. And the fact that consumer expectations are much higher and you need to design for 3+ screen sizes means it takes much longer to reach product market fit.
Being bootstrapped is no longer a huge disadvantage. Neither is not being a genius, the tools are all easy now. There are still going to be new startups that reach the size of Facebook, but they're going to get there by grinding, not overnight by using some party trick.
The new YC makes a lot more sense in this new landscape. Most other investors are still looking for startups that fit the pattern of Facebook and Twitter, and these are the ones who are going to lose all their money.
In 2005 YC's thesis was that the smartest technical people would make the best founders. That's why when you applied for startup school, they asked you what your favorite technologies were. And while there were certainly Java people there, the expected answers were clearly Python, Lisp, or Haskell.
The reason it may feel less exclusive now is because they're now actively encouraging people to apply rather than (arguably) actively discouraging people from applying. But that's because A) they know the original thesis was wrong B) you can basically now acquire the technical skills needed to build a startup by spending a few hours watching YouTube video about Django, so for most startups there isn't really any advantage conferred by being some sort of technical genius.
While it's true there are more startups now, it's also much harder to get in. Back in 2005 - 2007, probably a third of the startups went out of business without ever even launching. And it was expected that another third would never get any users. The stuff that would get you funded in 2006 not only wouldn't get you an interview today, it wouldn't even get you the email saying you were close to getting an interview.
I believe the Accelerator model can scale, 500SU is a good example, but I'm not sure the value that YC offers can scale.
Surely they're also saying why as well? Not much help without the why, otherwise just hearsay.
In my opinion, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and move forward. Having rejected from YC without any feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time"
If I could do all my startups again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big burden on team morale.
I think instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their business model. Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC.
YC can monitor these startups, and offer guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals.
If I could show you what I had to go through, to get to that stage, and is seeking your help, would you lend me a hand?
I'm in a similar boat as you having applied a few times, and never been accepted, but that never remotely affected progress on the projects.
On the one hand we're to believe that applying and being rejected resulting in a team falling apart is proof the system works, on the other, applying and being rejected caused you to keep going.
Doesn't that second case prove that the evaluation doesn't work?
Personally I feel that if you're going to do a startup not getting accepted into an accelerator is the same as not winning the lottery so assume you won't get in and try anyway if you can do so without spending a lot of time (which is a finite resource).
On the other hand I can see how people from various countries with an environment less geared towards start-ups would benefit from being in YC to the point that if they can't get in the whole thing is lost for them.
I wouldn't take that as proof that the vetting process works.
Not getting in and continuing is not proof that you are a strong team, all it says is that you're focused on the business/project not everything is weighted on how one group views what you're doing.
Does that make more sense?
I strongly disagree that not getting accepted to an accelerator is the same as not winning. I can't tell you how strongly I feel that way, and I've been through an accelerator before (not YC).
It's like saying not getting investment is the same as not winning, and that is also not true. What does it even mean. Not getting into an accelerator or getting funding isn't boolean. It's a 'yet'. You met with an investor and they didn't invest. You don't stop and give up.
My very first customer call I had an amazing target tell me they "didn't want to use my product and wanted to ensure that nobody did!". That sounds like failure to me.
The next 10 customers I spoke to couldn't wait to use the product. We've had 30k+ users and millions of visits. This was only one persons opinion, and you need to look at getting accepted by accelerators and investors in the same light.
You have to find your own confidence. Listen to their feedback if you can get it, but I'd hope you take their acceptence as a weak signal.
I hope that clarifies. Keep up the good fight.
It's very difficult to find decent and/or experienced co-founder(s). Given you are lucky enough to find them, and expect them to work for free. Given the rigors of the start-up process, when should they expect to give up and move to something new?
I've worked on a project for 3 years without pay. I filed bankruptcy. My partner had a divorce. We had traction and revenue, but not enough to support ourselves. We ended up closing down.
Getting into YC is tough. It also gives you an indication that something is going right. YC also gives you enough padding to make sure you are not distracted from harsh realities of life.
Everybody always says start-ups are hard, and there is no guarantee of success. In fact, most people say the there is almost a guarantee of failure. What keeps us going is the unfortunate promise of something better.
I hope things improve for you.
This is a good idea. Look out for some announcements from us soon: https://twitter.com/sama/status/821538708943880193
I've been rejected 4 times too. It doesn't feel good, but you need to be able to take these things in your stride and keep going. Startups are a grind.
> In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback.
I can guarantee you that multiple people look at every single application. This is actually part of the reason it's hard to give feedback to everyone who applies (let alone the sheer volume) - the reasons for rejection can vary between reviewers. After all the scores are tallied, there's no single individual who can speak to why a given application didn't make the cut.
I just wanted to give feedback, didn't mean to vent.
I would love to see YC going in that direction. Looking forward to it!
Maybe it's because YC pivoted from startups to social justice?
Feedback to early stage startups could encourage more founders to apply and keep going. Otherwise it's time consuming to put an application together.
I have a feeling that the next Facebook, Google, etc. will not be discovered in any accelerator program.
I agree with you on feedback. I would LOVE specific reasons why I was not accepted as it would give me very clear goals to shoot for. I also understand that the time to provide that feedback would be crippling to their own productivity.
(As an aside, I wonder if we are past the stage of another Facebook or Google. In a macro sense it seems as if we might be at a bit of a pullback from globalization and a result of that might be less new large global companies. I wonder if the next global companies of that size come from India or Brazil but for that to be the case the company would really need to come at the same time of massive economic growth and reduced corruption.)
We care deeply about making sure YC stays a place for early stage companies.
And YC really does need to change with the times. Paul Graham was the big reason people wanted so badly to get into YC and he's essentially gone now
It's now obvious to everyone that YC can't grant success to founders, it can "only" grant opportunity.
So why not admit that YC needs good founders more than good founders need YC? It's always been true but now it should be obvious to all.
So, drop all the fake eliteness, secret panels of "experts", and insider-club mentality. Just straight up tell founders what the requirements are for YC funding and then fund them!
For example say that all YC startups need:
1. One competent programmer willing to dedicate years. 2. At least one other person willing to dedicate years. 3. A Launched and usable prototype software.
What else do you need to know, whether they went to the right school? Whether they're attractive??? How good their spoken English is???
Here are some links to guidance we provide:
http://www.ycombinator.com/howtoapply/
http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/
http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
Here are some questions I ask myself when reading applications:
Can they build their own MVP? Is there a massively unequal equity split? Do the founders have pre-exisiting relationships? Do they have a non-obvious/controversial insight on their space Is the problem being solved significant (problem a lot of people have or people pay money for)? Am I impressed with the progress they have made since starting? If they don't get into YC - will the continue working on this company?
I applied last batch with ICanPriceIt.com, have a functional MVP but no traction and didn't get an invite.
Since then I've spent more time working on my Amazon reselling business- I'm a lot more passionate about the startup ideas I have, but not confident enough to shut down my profitable business to work on those. In other words, I'll very likely only work on this company if funded, or it might take a year or two before I'm comfortable enough to self-fund.
My understanding is that that hurts my chances of getting into YC significantly. Is that correct?
Is there any chance of YC funding a regular boring reselling company? There's little chance of being worth $1 billion ever, but there are several ones in the $100 million range (etailz sold a few months ago for $75 million, pharmapacks is selling over $100 million a year). Should I try applying for that business?
Startup School is good but it's not ongoing. Most VC firms have been more helpful than YC in the early stages personally.
For example, I've had VC firms write me a letter of recommendation for a visa when that's not something YC would do.
I can see YC is trying to increase flow. Why not make it more organic?
My assumption is that if someone I know is at a stage that they'd get into YC that they already know about YC and are able to make a better decision to apply or not than me.
I've told people about office hours in their city. Something that is helpful and they might not know about.
What is your plan for founders who get turned back at the airport if they chose you? PHD-in-progress wasn't good enough reason to enter the US last week and you want the smart people to apply for something in months.
What happened to YC's remote etc stuff? That would have been helpful about now.
https://blog.ycombinator.com/common-misconceptions-about-app...
> Misconception: Only US companies get into YC.
> S16: 29% were from outside the US.
So it's mostly true.
> Misconception: I need to raise a seed round before I apply to YC.
> S16: False. 14.2% of accepted companies weren’t even incorporated when they applied.
So it's mostly true.
The list goes on and on. Not that it removes the merit of YC or anything, but, hey, mind neutering the PR/marketing BS a bit to give the actual picture without trying to paint lipstick all over the pig? ;-)
The way that FAQ or whatever it is reads atm is: "Our deal flow is not as big as we'd like, so please send more applications in so we can show we've tons of demand to those we raised funds from and ensure they'll invest again because we get to be picky since we're hugely popular!" Which is PR/marketing at the end of the day, but just don't be misleading to would-be founders.
Also, there were more than three. A few more that stood out, and I'm sure we could argue on a few more:
> Misconception: I’ve raised too much money for YC.
Is a sampling anomaly for all we know.
> Misconception: I’m too far along for YC.
Likewise.
> Misconception: Solo founders aren’t accepted.
Seriously? "8.5% had a solo founder."
> Misconception: I need to know someone at YC or have an alumni recommendation.
Likewise. "54.7% did not have a recommendation." Of those that did/didn't, how many got accepted?
> Misconception: I’ll never get in.
Right, 100% who got in applied, see? Meaningless.
Might be just me, but I've met my own fair share of deluded founders and very bright ones. It would be a public service for everyone out there if they could see a VC's deal flow exposed as it is, and be able to crunch a few numbers before they apply.
Might you get less deal flow if you did that? Maybe. Might the deal flow be more interesting? Might also be...
Either way, though, you'd be a very interesting source of data for anyone trying to figure out "Do I tick most of the boxes to get funding or am I just wasting my time?" Raising funds takes lots of enery. Even Paul Graham says so here:
"54.7% did not have a recommendation." (regarding accepted companies) - founders who are applying are not interested in the "percentage of accepted founders who had a recommendation", it's "what is my chance of acceptance with a recommendation?" vs "what is my chance of acceptance without a recommendation?" For example, if say, 50% of 150 'recommended' founders are accepted, while 1% of 7350 'unrecommended' founders were accepted, you would get similar numbers to those published.
The deadline-based application process is distracting. While the application is helpful, and should be kept, the founders are expected to waste time and attention every 6 months wondering "but what if my next 3 out of 6 months are committed to YC". Now requesting recommendations adds just one more distraction. People who are committed to work on their project will likely apply multiple times to an ever-decreasing odds process.
If you keep the application open year-round we can just direct information your way whenever it happens and use it as our own benchmark. Just a thought.
When you provide a recommendation, we reach out and encourage them to apply. You can also track the status of all your recommendations and see how they did.
For example, they submitted an application, were rejected, meet YC, got funding, etc.
Applications for YC Summer 2017 are open now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600594
Is YC going to read all these recommendations or is it going to be only forwarded to the person applying?
What the heck? This post reads like YC can't find enough founders (in quality + quantity) already.
If so, is it due to the changing landscape of startups themselves or the shift in focus from startups to left leaning political ideology?