Hacker News Reader

The move to SFBA is a real issue, and an obstacle for anyone with family commitments. I'm not sure what they can realistically do about it, since part of the premise of the program is that you're benefiting from being physically proximate to them.

The rest of this, I think you're wrong about.

I'm at a YC company right now (Fly.io) --- technically, I'm a YC founder at Fly.io --- and I've spent the last several years working directly with YC companies, and I haven't perceived any distinctive "80 hour work week, subsist on ramen" lifestyle out of those companies. I know why people believe this about YC companies, and I think it's a convenient fiction YC itself sort of deliberately doesn't knock back, but I don't think there's much truth to it.

I used to think 7% was ludicrous for what YC was bringing to the table, but YC brings a lot more to the table now than it did when I thought that. There are cynical ways to look at the YC benefit and there are generous ways to look at it, but either way: if you're going to go on to raise more money, you're getting something significantly more than $125k for the share you give up.

I'd be more concerned about the "$125k for a founding team is ludicrous" thing but for the fact that for me, and for most of the people I talk to about this stuff, the alternative to YC is bootstrapping and consulting. If you're looking at the money YC gives you for the session as the entire financial permission structure for your company, you weren't going to succeed no matter who invested in your company.

To jump in for a second as the OP. What is also interesting about me is that I do not need a single dime from YC. I value their input enough that I would easily give 7% for a $1 investment. Part of being where I am is that I have secured myself financially to the extent that my thinking about YC as an option wasn't at all related to startup money. I don't need it. I own a quarter million dollar industrial-grade shop perfectly capable of manufacturing just about anything I need. What I can't manufacture directly I can get made through myriad industry relationships for almost nothing.

The primary value I saw in trying to enter YC was about driving the inflection point through a larger investment after self-funding everything up to and including getting product in front of prospective customers, booking some sales and demonstrating traction. At that point, I wanted to have both the financial horsepower and network available to push hard on the accelerator.

My prior experience taught me that being starved of cash is the single most difficult hurdle to jump over. I put over $300K of my own money into my last serious startup. That money went a long way because I was able to wear so many hats (and I was working from my garage).

The problem surfaced when I had to grow. I was starved for cash. It was as twice as painful as anyone could possibly imagined. The slope of your growth curve, at some point, becomes a function of financial horsepower. I mortgaged my home and pulled out another $250K. That helped, but it wasn't enough. Hardware is hard for a reason. You need cash, lots of it.

The inflection point started to appear in 2008, it took an indescribably effort and unimaginable personal sacrifice to get there from starting in my garage in 2001. At the peak I closed a five million dollar sale that was going to provide enough money to truly put the business on the map and displace multi-billion dollar market-leader companies from the segment we were in.

And then the economic implosion happened. Our five million dollar client defaulted on the contract. The company went from having an acquisition offer to the tune of tens of millions dollars on the table to being as close to bankruptcy as you can get by mid 2009. I almost closed another multi-million dollar sale that would have saved the business in 2010. In the end, the tail end of the financial crisis ended-up imploding that potential sale, and that was the end of it.

Life can be an interesting ride for entrepreneurs.

Please read the YC text again.

The problem isn't the offer, so much as the rationale behind the offer. It's perfectly possible to make a similar offer without being ageist:

* Grad schools do that. "Learn; we'll give you $24k per year as a stipend."

* YC could pitch the $125k, a for example, a means to improve inclusiveness and DEI.

* Etc.

That's not what they do. They say that the program is for founding teams for whom $125k will cover a half-year of expenses, at least. That means young teams. There's a lot of ageist copy from YC. That's why I assume I'm not welcome there.

Again, I'm (technically) a YC founder, I'm in my 40's, and I don't get that at all from the $125k number. If anything, I feel like I have an easier time with first-year startup expenses at this age than I did in my 20s.

How is that at all responsive to what I wrote?

I said the $125k number could be fine, if the rationale behind it wasn't ageist. You come back and defend the number.

The rationale isn't ageist.

My recollection is that $125k came about because when there was more money (and there was at one time) it was enough to tempt a non-trivial number of founders to fight over rather than build a company.

The problem, in so far as what I read on HN, was not three cofounders deciding to take the money and travel the world instead of building the company. The problem was that the founders who were interested in fighting over the money were distributed across many teams.

As for the realism of six months of expenses from $125k, thinking about it those terms is a signal that someone might not be a good fit. If it's a problem, it's a surmountable problem either through work (and luck) or through a willingness to fail.

It's a non-starter for non-startups.

> because when there was more money (and there was at one time) it was enough to tempt a non-trivia

My recollection is the opposite. I picked a random web archive day 12+ years ago and confirmed it was a laughably small sum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090302183945/http://ycombinato...

> We usually invest $5000 + $5000n, where n is the number of participating founders (i.e. 2 founders get $15,000, 3 get $20,000), in return for between 2% and 10% of the company. The median is 6%.

Originally it was that low. Then it went up until it hit the point of creating problems. Now it is where it is which is lower than where it once was but much higher than it was before the peak.

The increases started I believe via an outside investor (maybe Conway? maybe Arrington? maybe not) agreeing to spread dollars uniformly across each batch's portfolio. There were also things like AWS credits. Basically, there were miscellaneous efforts to extend the runway.

As YC has matured, the efforts have become more organized.

It's worth noting that the lower investments originally were more commensurate with both the cost of living for a few months in the Bay Area and with the valuations of startups...Reddit sold to Conde Nast for about $10 million and sub-million dollar funding rounds used to be news on the front page of Hacker News.

Hasn't COVID moved the whole relocation thing out of the way?