Having done a Techstars program myself, I was also surprised at some of the companies that were allowed in.
If not, a mechanism to let the other participants anonymously vote and rate and comment such things, and then administrators can look at that data - and see what specific admin(s) was/were responsible for inviting them in, and then address the issue as close to the core as possible might of helped?
If the only investments available are unprofitable, you don't invest.
I don't see why you'd introduce a reality-TV-style backstabbing mechanic, just to get the 19 year old founders to do the work the rich, sophisticated investors were supposed to be doing but weren't.
However, Techstars always had an adverse selection problem : the best companies usually prefer to join YC.
Well, yes, this is exactly what someone who sells this kind of service would say. Where is the skill, though? Just spray and pray. Eliminating survivorship bias, is it actually successful, on average? Can it beat the S&P?
The upside is certainly not unlimited, and you can lose all of your money before you find a big winner.
>the best companies usually prefer to join YC.
If they are already the best companies, what does YC add? Besides, most of the best companies don't join any incubator.
100's of competing accelerators popped up but none could match these results : https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/
I also think that the Techstars staff members were not adequate. Every single staff member had left by the next year. And when I would email the subsequent MDs about anything, I'd get no reply.
Check out VCs Congratulating Themselves twitter feed.
Only now am I starting to see smaller web companies be product focused instead of funding focused.
Probably bc ZIRP ended.