csentropy

Yes.

Funny you say that. "Deriskinga nd monetizing future founder potential" is literally on my whiteboard.

We are exploring ways to structure the pool with a portion of it in cash/capital. more coming

Founders and executives "play a role" in outcomes. The future of any company pre liquidation is uncertain.

Agree with employee pools. That is the next step version for founderpool and it is literally the most requested!

Thank you

Please sign up!

1. Single pool, based on rounds, but new companies can join a pool with consent from all aexisting companies

2. Support is entirely up to them, but the goal is to create an engaged community with strong incentive alignment to help with investor pipeline, customer intros, partnerships, hiring, strategic advice etc

It works both ways.

1. In a verticalized approach, your startup risk approaches your sector risk, if pool is large enough.

2. In a stage based pool approach (sector agnostic), risk is more diversified but rankings will be less meaningful. For ex, a rocket company founder may not be a good judge of CPG companies.

Good question. It hasn't empirically. See founders taking money off the table in secondary in series A, Airbnb etc.

Plus, financially derisked founders are paid a premium (those with previous exits) by VC.

So we know that this is mostly an academic argument, but it is a resasanoble concern.

Moreover, if 90-95% of your holdings are your company, you are still motivated to make it a success, despite the 5-10% diversification. And most great founders are motivated by more than pure financial upside.

1. Pool construction happens by peer selection. All participating founders submit rank order lists and we construct pools using Gale-Shapley algorithm (a version) 2. I wondered ht3 same. A few like FF have thought about it, but they have a financial conflict between preferred and common (LP obligations) the makes it complicated to do. With founderpoool, they can 3. YC and like. Eventually, we hope this becomes the standard model for all founders when they start

None that I found so far.

It's peer selection based on ranking. We are moving to a version of Gale-Shapley stable algorithm for pool construction

Its organized in rounds, but current pool members can invite other startups in with a unanimous consent.

Thank you! Will check it out.

disbursements will happen at exit or liquidity event. If a company gets acquired, proceeds go to pool members pro rata. Stock distributions if it IPOs

We didn't find any, so we had to build it. Thank you for the feedback

1. Thanks, we are working on it 2. Yes 3. Based on the value of your stock, determined by fair market value and other assets you hold

I did write it legally :)

Yeah. One of the many experiments that were tried by the Central Economic Mathematical Institute in the old USSR

So they found my ex's address?

Ha ha true. I doubt he will though.

That's what I intended to ask, my question wasn't clear. Is there a way someone could contribute to the YC community as an outsider? Ideas welcome.

What is the best way to get connected to the YC network if you are not a YC alum?

You state two discrete events and in the next sentence talk as though they are causally related. Maybe economic mobility is harder in the US now than before. Could economic strangulation by regulation be the cause of it? Maybe the wealth transfer induced by central banking is? There are many unknown variables that could cause that. But people only cling to what fashionable prescription makes them looks good. The evidence of >500 million people lifting themselves out of poverty since liberalization of china's and India's economy proves that it is possible beyond a measure of doubt if economic freedom is increased. But that is not a fashionable opinion is it? Any flavor of marxism/socialism/redistributionism is good except what works. Funny

Assuming humans are "rational actors" according to a third person's definition of rationality is the biggest flaw in the theory you mentioned. Rationality is not amenable to interpersonal comparisons. What looks rational to me depends on my wants, needs, desires, orders of preferences and is impossible for you to deduce in an y objective way. That is the problem with most econ 101 models.

Minimum wage is an artifact of economic folly. If you are voluntarily selling your labor, it means that you are getting the best value for it. If you could get more for your labor, you would. If no one else wants your labor, it means that the price you get is the most for your labor. It does not mean that that is all you will "ever" get. It just means that is all you can get until you can figure out a way to be more productive and be paid more for your labor.

Some people who remain poor do have poor character. Some people who are poor are so because of hard luck. It is extremely impolite to say it but it is true. Not that it should prevent you from helping any of them. Your hypothetical example is irrelevant because rationally, they should save the money for a rainy day, if they know that every day is not going to be as bountiful as this one. And try to leverage that to elevate themselves out of poverty. I saw this in lot in the third world. But many other people (both there and the west) lack it. Acknowledging that fact is the cause of the problem? Thats just silly.

This had to be the most absurd argument ever made. Poor people are poor because they are poor and therefore they will be? I can give you a million examples of poor people that have gotten wealthier (including my own and a lot of people I personally know) but it wouldn't matter to you would it? Ever heard of social mobility? To fix society, give everyone everything they need for free? Amazing insight.

Could the outcome to the founders have been bigger if wufoo became a bigger company by prioritizing growth over profits?

Ha Ha

Good post and really interesting metric YOY growth+Operating margins=40% looks like a reliable northstar.