Hacker News Reader

Comment by ec109685 | Hacker News Reader

It’s annoying he doesn’t even revise when he is clearly wrong, e.g. around the idea that YC doesn’t encourage pivots: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37870099

View on HN

I've always been sort of leery of the idea of pivots, because a pivot for a company really doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless it's more of a course correction, and/or heavily utilizes the company's built-up IP (eg Slack, the famous pivot from a gaming company to a productivity tool that they made for themselves).

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.

I can see pivots being worthwhile for existing investors if the business needs more investment. If the pre-pivot is a worthless thing you own 7% of, it would be better to inject another bundle to own 14% for a new thing instead of starting afresh and owning 7% of nothing plus 7% of a new thing.

The thing is that usually pivots are pre-vesting for the founders, and usually the company has less in the bank when they initially raised. In those conditions, the entirety of the company's assets will be returned to the investors when the company dissolves.

It is a good point that it can get you a larger share of a success, though.

YC has always said they invest in founders not their products.

To me, pivot feels like YC saying: hey, we thought you were above the cut, that's why you're here. We know the low likelihood of an idea exploding, let's just get you focusing on other promising blocks as soon as we hit bedrock.

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.

This comment in the thread is in disagreement with your point:

> 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.

> 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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com