Comment by ngiyabonga | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ngiyabonga | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I find these two concepts [1, 2] at odds with each other. Not a critique on the author - on the contrary, empathy: I felt the same when applying to YC (did not make a batch).

On one hand, the general impression you get when preparing for your application (via FAQs, Startup School, YC videos, etc) is very much in line with [1] - YC is looking for _very_ early stage.

But once you go through the actual application you feel focus shift towards [2] - metrics and $. That is to say (with admittedly some not-having-been-selected bias), I feel [2] is a significant factor in deciding on applications. So as I weigh in on whether to apply for the next batch, I'm not sure whether a product I've just finished building makes sense for YC and whether I should gamble on attempt #3.

I think it would help both YC and founders if they take some steps to make this clear(er) for potential applicants.

[1] > In general, there is an evident focus on the very early stage without a product. The main theory and advice are about how to figure out what to do, how to build an MVP, how to launch, how to talk to customers, where to find the first 10 customers, how to raise the first money, and so on. Needless to say, for companies with tens or even hundreds of thousands in revenue it won’t be very valuable.

[2] > [...] present dry facts—how much money customers already paid you, what the size of the market, if you count all the units you can sell, what you have actually built and what is working today. And this will always sound bad for anyone, it just can't sound good in the early days.

My impression from YC and investors in general is that without a product and traction, the investment decision becomes mostly about you as a person. Do you have an impressive résumé? Are you an MIT/Stanford grad? Do you come across as especially intelligent and ambitious in conversations?

When you have a product and traction, a lot of that goes out the window. All the things I listed above are basically proxies for “might have the ability to make something people want”. If you’ve already shown you can do that, other things become less important. On the extreme end, where you are growing like crazy, most investors will overlook just about any flaw or lack of credentials.

> But once you go through the actual application you feel focus shift towards [2] - metrics and $. That is to say (with admittedly some not-having-been-selected bias), I feel [2] is a significant factor in deciding on applications.

While the application does ask about that (and I'm sure it's very helpful for getting in if you've already demonstrated traction) it's absolutely not required to have any revenue or users when getting accepted into YC. I'm in the current batch. We applied before we'd built anything and definitely before we had any users (we didn't even have a name yet -- we had to pick one in order to submit the application). Across the batch there are a few companies that came in with strong traction but they're definitely in the minority.

I think this dissonance comes from most of YC's guiding literature being written by PG in the 2000s and early 2010s. Back in those days it was definitely possible to grab the attention of users and investors with janky prototypes. But now the reality is that prototypes are nothing and traction is king. The new YC partners probably have to make this shift in practice and out of politeness, they don't call out the guiding literature

You're right, it feels contradictive.

On the defense of YC, I would say, they aim to make you think in terms of metrics and $ from day 1, perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com