Don't see a problem with YC "dutching" and spreading their bets across multiple forks/teams.
people seem so caught up in founders' particular ideas at the pre-seed stage and forget that YC is investing in people - specifically: people who try. you can jokingly quip that you'd be better at forking vs code, but at the end of the day they're doing it - not "waiting for their check" - and you're making fun of them on the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, maybe consider you're spending your time baselessly defending strangers on the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are they? Seems like based on this YC alum [0], the reality these days is otherwise.
But seriously, this has got to feel pretty shite for continue. What is their impetus to roll out new features when they know that pear can focus on only the icing on top of that milestone, inherently making continue look like a less polished version of pear, when in fact they were the innovators?
I think what we have here is an antisynergy of the incentives baked into open-source and capital speculation. It’s a recursion bug that undermines the incentive structure, and YC was foolish to be so disloyal to their partners.
I don't see many AI companies reaching billion dollar valuations and I don't see any AI company retaining billion dollar valuations in the next five to ten years.
I think the safest bet is in niches where you bring unusual or hard to obtain datasets to the table. Training data is the only moat.
Which is of course fine but you see Dalton's Request for Startups and I've not seen only a tiny handful in the last two batches.
This makes more sense now that I think about it.
A legal wrapper will use domain specific legal expertise to structure and develop their product and functionality. It will likely have many functions that are specifically optimized for the legal use case.
If a wrapper can easily move across many domains, then the wrapper likely adds little value to the base model.