After reviewing 300 startup applications, this is what I learned | Hacker News Reader

After reviewing 300 startup applications, this is what I learned

techfounder.net

50 pointsadambenayoun12 comments

I don't know, pretty much the standard wisdom you soak up after being on HN for a while. You can see that because many of the points are contrasted in an earlier post on HN "Why instagram gets VC and hyperloop not" or something like that.

The real question is: Why on earth would I want to go through an accelerator if I can check all of these points?? If you have traction, and revenue, then cloud computing and the right architecture is all you need in a 100% tech startup.

Not to mention: you already have a team

In the real world, nothing goes that well.

Agreed. My question was even more fundamental though - why would I even want traction and revenue? I've been working on what my girlfriend calls my forever project[1] for a loooong time. I used to think I'm going to raise money to work on it full time, get crazy rich and buy a Ferrari and get laid or something.

Given what I've read about the hell that is fundraising, I'm happy that I've got a hobby that makes me happy.

[1] https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=218fb45c-591a-441...

Kind of depends on what you're trying to build/achieve, wouldn't you say? It sounds like you're not trying to build a large business, instead it sounds like you're looking for a hobby, which is perfectly fine.

But, if you were trying to build a viable business, you can't have a business without revenue, and you can't really have revenue without traction.

The only reason I can see for using an accelerator would be to get access to the network that they provide. Being able to show your product on demo day will allow you to have access to a fairly large set of investors. Whether that's important or not if you already have a business comes down to the "Total Addressable Market" and how fast you think you need to grow.

Great insights into their process but I'm wondering why you would be interested in seed funding if you already have a live product with traction and revenue.

It sounds more like traditional investing rather than venture capital.

For certain verticals (manufacturing and enterprise sales in particular), its non-trivial to expand faster than your revenue growth: manufacturing runs can require a lot of up-front capital, and B2B sales can often rely on scaling up a sales team or similarly high up-front costs.

It sounds like they're not interested in those types of businesses though. They want to invest in the easily scalable.

I think you misunderstand the state of VC nowadays. They are not about funding "innovation", they are about scaling already proven concepts. For example, look at all the dollars that have gotten funneled into ecommerce sites. That is not exactly groundbreaking.

I also think you underestimate what it takes to get a startup from a small niche business to one that can dominate a market. If you want a small business, then an accelerator (or seed funding) is not appropriate. If you want a high growth business however that could become a category killer, then an accelerator can help. Plus, there are plenty of site and apps that can show a little traction and a little revenue. But to turn that into a sustainable business is an entirely other matter.

That being said, there are some VC's and accelerators that are taking risks. It is just that the expectations have been raised across the board given how easy it is to get started and to launch an app or a website.

The article is good, bu I find the title a little bit misleading. I expected to read about what types of ideas are dominating the market right now.

Really good article. Interesting insights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com