Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Critiques of Paul Graham and YC lose me the instant they suggest that they're rigging the system for venture capitalists. I've got friends in YC, I've worked closely with YC companies for years, I know several people at YC, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned.

I'm pretty sure they're wrong about a couple things --- particularly the stuff that comes from some of the earlier PG essays. That's not the same as being corrupted. I'm wrong about a lot of stuff too.

View on HN

I don't think there are many who would seriously suggest that YC/PG have bad intentions but survivor bias can have exactly the same effect.

So can a "big picture" view: a 90% probability of failure might not seem nearly so bad to someone who can hedge by investing (not necessarily just $) in hundreds of companies. Expectation maximization is much more appealing when you have enough trials to get one of them off the ground. Whereas a founder "starting from 0" might reasonably prefer a ~maximin approach. Neither objective is wrong or corrupt, but advice that suits one and not the other might as well be.

PG and everyone in YC know this and I'm sure they all make honest efforts to work around the tension, but we should be realistic about the fact that tension exists.

It seems rational for entrants in a YC class to all invest in each other, to hedge the failure risk. Why doesn't everyone in a given YC class (say, of 100 people) agree to give 10% of their company to a holding company, in response for 1% ownership of that holding company?

Everyone might have to be an accredited investor, which the majority would not qualify for. Another potential problem is that companies want to keep their cap tables minimal for regulatory reasons. Also, how does the 10% vote in board decisions?

Also, what if some companies held out. So now 80% of the YC companies are in this hedge fund. Wouldn't the most successful companies disproportionately come from the 20%--the ones who had enough confidence to reject the deal? Would the smart people in the 80% then defect as well, bringing the cabal down to 60%?

Founder Institute has something like that model. I haven't heard of any breakout successes from them yet.

http://fi.co/

So?

YC can have founder interests at heart and still give out VC biased advice because of the type of startup they encourage. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

PG's advice isn't geared primarily towards VC interests (beyond a successful startup), it's mainly biased because it's based on his own personal experience. There's no conspiracy.

Historically YC has given more power to entrepreneurs vs the VCs. JL & co. founded YC mainly because VCs sucked even more at the time. Given what YC has accomplished, I'm sure a lot of people can say that they've made things better.

Can the current VC environment be improved? Yes. Has it gotten much better ever since YC's influence has grown? Yes. Will Sam change one of YC's core missions of giving founders more equal footing? It's possible but I really I doubt it.

Perhaps you'd understand if people discounted your comment slightly because of your apparent close relationship with YC, then?

They have the best interests of founders in mind only insofar as their pocketbooks and reputation benefit from it. That's at best an intersection that doesn't contain all the elements in both sets.

Disclaimer: I'm a pretty cynical and skeptical person by nature. I'm especially suspicious when people with a lot of money at risk say, well, just about anything. My experiences have lead me to believe that it is an extremely rare individual who will not go to great lengths to protect and accumulate his wealth, even to an extent that many would consider sociopathic, and further that this trait is amplified geometrically as wealth is accumulated.

Hopefully a little less than they'd discount a comment from someone who'd casually impugn the integrity of a total stranger on the Internet solely to make a banal point-scoring argument.

Seems to me they're about equal in merit. Also, in case your comment was directed at me, I didn't impugn anybody's integrity.

A complete ad hominem. You did not address his point at all, which was quite valid.

Have a read over this [1], one of countless studies which supports the original commenter's assertion that wealth and status accumulation tend to the be prime directive of every individual who has even a modicum of either asset.

If PG and YC truly cared about entrepreneurship in spite of their own best interests, they would be working tirelessly for a worldwide basic income which frees talented individuals from the whims of VCs, incubators, and employers alike and allows said entrepreneurs to fully focus their energies on bootstrapping their ideas with maximum freedom over their time, equity, and strategic decisions.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9226268

I don't think we're working from the same definition of "ad hominem".

I agree with you on many levels. I think it's important to remember that founders looking to get into YC are seeking PG's advice and thus have specific goals in mind. I don't want to debate whether YC is biased towards VC's or not because I think that's irrelevant here. In my opinion, what matters is YC's track record. Remember, no one is forcing you to look to YC for startup advice...

>and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned.

But the characteristic we're looking for here is employee aligned. Founders can make out like bandits whilst the employees find out the hardway what their contracts really mean.

What do you see wrong in PG's early essays?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com