This is a repost from the authors blog before the W24 deadline:
The fact that this was reposted only 6 months later makes this a dupe by HN's standard (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Normally we would mark it as such, which removes a thread from HN's front page.
I'm not going to do that, though, because the principle described here is more important: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
"We moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is the story" is the first rule of HN moderation. That does not mean we don't moderate at all—that would be too big a loophole. But we always moderate less than we otherwise would.
A related principle is that we trust readers to be smart enough to make up their own minds. Between this thread and the one I posted yesterday (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40091622) I think HN commenters are doing a good job of that.
Edit: although it follows from the above, I should probably say explicitly that the [flagged] marker on the post is because of flags that came from users, not moderators.
> As a former employer for a YC funded company that was shut down against the founder's wishes, forced to via the investor board; I can say that this article does not universally wrongly characterize the YC experience.
I have heard of YC doing pivots, so "dig a hole in the same spot until you reach the boiling magma" doesn't characterize it either. However, that doesn't make YC look good from the perspective of a founder wanting to be in control. What I remember hearing from YC is of cases where a partner tells you to pivot, not where they let the founders decide to pivot themselves.
Edit: I realized the main comment linked to jibes with what I was saying:
> The overwhelming feeling is: be humble in the face of reality, try something and try to try it in a way that you can assess whether it’s working — quickly/cheaply — then try something new.
...try something new that's recommended by the YC partner(s)
I am more positive than negative on YC though. There is no perfect balance between being too hands-on or too hands-off for a startup accelerator.
Post-batch you can talk to your partners as often as you want or never again - they stay out of your way unless you explicitly reach out. They make this quite clear during the batch as well.
During the batch you do talk to your partners as part of the structure. They do give (really good!) advice, but you're always told it's your company. I can see them giving advice based on their experience on where you might want to dig instead, but I've never heard a founder being forced down a direction they didn't want to go. After all, why would that be the optimal path?
What would make more sense for everyone is for the company "pivoting" to simply shut down, return the unused money to the investors, and reincorporate to do the new thing. That new thing would then go get investment for itself from investors who are more aligned with the new mission.
It is a good point that it can get you a larger share of a success, though.
I'm assuming this isn't terribly uncommon, considering the hitrate and actual sunk cost.
I see the author's viewpoint from a milder formula: learn, earn, or quit. YC seems to be a perfectly fine place to learn a certain kind of methodology. It can be difficult to balance the value flow, especially when goodwill is involved, but there aren't many places that will give you half a mill and a chance at a dream.
Respect to Dang for not taking it down.