- No standard deal (looks like a16z will negotiate equity separately with each startup)
- Potentially double the check size (up to $1M compared to the standard YC $500k deal)
- Much smaller batch sizes (currently 11 in START, compared to 319 in YC W21)
- The obvious: different network connections, mentors, and track records
Hypergrowth is often what founders want. It's validation of product market fit (and of all the efforts).
I suspect it won't be a negotiation given the power imbalance.
More a case of this is our terms and either you accept or leave.
1) it doesn't hurt to negotiate. Worst case they stand firm.
2) if you get a $1m offer from a16z, chances are you will be able to get competitive offers from other firms too. So it's more about whether you like the partner you're talking to, whether you want to work with a16z or another fund, etc
(source: I'm a VC)
But even if it was: is a VC's multi-decade record more valuable to a founder than other in-the-now considerations?
And, while ideally VCs & founders in the same firm rise with the same tide, cooperatively, synergistically, there can be a margin at which a VC's lower returns could mean higher returns for other owners, like the founders & team.
Its not like you invest in these kinds of funds at a certain watermark and hope your investment is at the time where things go up. you have no exposure to prior investments no matter how awesome or poor they were.
For funds that collect all the capital up front and close off, maybe thats fine.
For hedge funds (with a neat sidepocket) or other more open-ended funds it seems like you need multiple graphs based on when invested.