Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonknee | Hacker News Reader

Why is it up to YC? They only have a small chunk of Airbnb, there are many other larger shareholders. The most motivated investors to have a smooth fix here would be the ones that just sank in over $100M at a sky-high $1.3B valuation.

View on HN

Yeah, the implied YC association in all of this is a bit bizarre. AirBnB raised about 0.01% of their financing from YC. They've got a strong board comprised of some very experienced, good VCs. Saying that YC should handle this would be like suggesting that Bill Gate's Harvard fraternity should clean up Microsoft's faux pas. (That's a bit hyperbolic, but I think you see what I'm getting at.)

Interestingly, perhaps, I see YC's connection to this story as more that it runs the site that broke the story: this one. I suspect pg getting involved is more because he personally likes the AirBnB founders rather than that he sees it as the responsibility of YC.

>AirBnB raised about 0.01% of their financing from YC.

That is not the relevant number. YC will tend to care about the bad publicity in direct proportion to how much of the stock they own, and they probably own a lot more than 0.01% of AirBnB.

That's silly. It implies that YC doesn't trust AirBnB's board, who all have more skin in the game, know the situation better and on top of that, are mostly personal friends of the YC partners.

"Skin in the game" is percent ownership.

YC had to invest in a lot of startups that didn't get as far as AirBnB to end up owning ~6% of an AirBnB.

For the record, Airbnb has raised 3 rounds of funding, so YC's percentage is probably closer to 2% than 6% (0.06 * 0.7^3). Other than that I don't see how your point is relevant. Sure, I get that YC's share of Airbnb is valuable. But it's dwarfed by others who have more power both formally and informally.

You said roughly "other people have more money on the line, so YC should let them do it"

This is wrong in far more than 5 ways, but we will start with 5.

1. Your model of "money on the line" doesn't seem to account for diminishing marginal utility (if a billionaire has $1 million at risk, and a millionaire has $1k at risk, the risk is greater for the millionaire even though the percentage risk is equal).

2. Your model doesn't seem to account for relative portfolio size (if a billionaire risks $1 million, and a $10 millionaire also risks $1 million, the risk is greater for the $10 millionaire)

3. Your model doesn't seem to account for the opportunity cost of time (YC seems to like/have time for talking to the press about YC companies, something that many VC firms don't)

4. Your model doesn't seem to account for relative skill (YC seems better at talking to the press than most VC firms)

5. Your model doesn't seem to account for compensation options (if YC doesn't feel that time spent would be positive ROI, AirBnB or the other investors might be able to pay YC to do it)

In short, my coming on HN to read interesting business discussion, only to find thoughts like "Saying that YC should handle this would be like suggesting that Bill Gate's Harvard fraternity should clean up Microsoft's faux pas (That's a bit hyperbolic, but I think you see what I'm getting at.)" is like being invited by a friend to the symphony, and showing up to discover a five year old alternating between playing a xylophone and eating wood glue (That's a bit hyperbolic, but I think you see what I'm getting at).

I think it might have something to do with the articles about how saavy the founders are, how some who passed on it regretted doing so, etc., than purely their involvement as investors. This story does not mesh well with that message.

Just from the numbers, it is likely that even if YC wanted to take on a role in addressing this Airbnb issue, they would have no ability to do so at all. Airbnb is run by its board, not by YC.

Since I'm not sure if this is in response to me or just a general comment, I want to clarify that I don't personally think YC has much room to maneuver and I don't think they should be the ones out in front of the story.

I just think that articles like this one[1] have put them in a bind with respect to this story.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/airbnb.html

No part of this linked story has anything to do with the current drama. In fact, it's the opposite: that's Paul Graham saying that the thing he likes best about Airbnb is that they are likely to pivot away from Etsy-style small-ball with people's rooms and towards direct competition with hotels.

I'm left with the impression that you think YC is in a bind here because you want them to be in a bind here. It sure is a lot more fun to talk about, isn't it?

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with it directly, I'm talking about the perception created by that sort of story and the coverage it spawned.

If you're on record talking about someone's positive qualities, and they make a mistake, or even are accused of making a mistake, that puts others in a position of expecting you to have a position on it. But they can't really take a public position on it beyond what pg's already said on the matter, and we see what good that did. This is the bind I am talking about.

I don't want them to be in a bind. I have no feelings one way or the other about the matter, really, I am just attempting to offer my point of view on why people are clamoring for YC to be more vocal about this topic.

Being on record saying positive things about someone or something does not put you in a bind when years later something bad happens with them. I liked John Edwards in 2007.

The logic that involves YC in the Airbnb drama is juvenile. Sorry to be so blunt about it; I know nobody likes being called names.

As someone who donated to John Edwards's campaign in 2007, I can sympathize with that scenario.

I don't think it's right, and maybe I have just been in DC too long, but this is how this sort of thing works in the media. I never said they owe an explanation to anyone or anything like that, but people are _clearly_ expecting one. Something set that expectation.

Maybe this makes me juvenile, that's fine.

When you say "I don't think that way, but other people clearly will", do you realize that you yourself are perpetuating the phenomenon?

I am saying "I don't think this way, but I believe this is why others do." You can discuss an idea without supporting it.

It's just an economies of scale thing. YC has hundreds of start-ups, and a few will have issues at any given time. I don't think it's up to YC because they are obligated to, just because I think it would be worthwhile.

Even if YC did have such a thing, consider that Airbnb has raised like 20x more than YC has invested into their entire portfolio since 2005. Airbnb is worth more than YC. It's not that YC doesn't give tips on how to do some of your initial PR, but once you're at the level that Airbnb is at you're not going to be relying on YC freebies.

If it can be twisted (and someone will twist it) to sound as if YC were funding startups that result in considerate consumer risk, things could escalate rapidly to a place I can imagine they don't want it going.

That's nice. But all the Internet message board sentiment in the world doesn't change the fact that YC doesn't represent Airbnb. Even if YC wanted to help with Airbnb's crisis management, they are a tiny minority investor in the company. Unless Paul Graham is secretly on their board, they probably can't do anything at all about this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com