4 ms·
You're right that accelerators are bound to fail, you're wrong to call YC an accelerator. That's what distinguishes YC, it's not an accelerator it's a company
by zabramow 11y ago
You're right that accelerators are bound to fail, you're wrong to call YC an accelerator. That's what distinguishes YC, it's not an accelerator it's a company that funds lots of startups at once. Accelerator implies that you're going to artificially speed up growth, presumably in order to get the company an outside investment. YC doesn't accelerate growth and Sam in particular boasts (in a good way) about being a patient investor.
Also, don't underestimate HackerNews. How many other "accelerators" have a content hub that engages their customer base daily. You can't underestimate what that does for their brand.
- fivedogit 11y agoA YC founder once told me: "YC doesn't make a company and definitely won't fix a company... they invest in companies that are already working. That's their secret." Granted, these companies aren't soaring into the stratosphere yet. "Already working" can simply mean a few early customers, a functional and polished prototype, or even just a really good idea and a (very) proven team. The point is that YC, like any investor, tries to minimize risk as much as possible, even though they're in the riskiest layer of professional startup investing. I used to agonize over the fact that I never worked at a big name-brand company and that I haven't been able to hobnob with apex talent who might co-found a startup with me as I figured that was the only way to get into YC or TS. This one bit of advice (i.e. traction is everything) washed away that anxiety like night and day. The ability to succeed is in the founders' hands, not YC's magic wand. Doubly so... because do you really want to take investment (even from YC) in an idea that doesn't have traction and isn't working?