3 ms·

What is the problem you are trying to solve? If other investors get to look after YC has selected, why should they wait (from their point of view). If other i

What is the problem you are trying to solve? If other investors get to look after YC has selected, why should they wait (from their point of view). If other investors are looking at the applicants in parallel, what does YC get in exchange for the deal flow? They are not making investments at a size where syndication and reciprocal deal flow would be useful, and it's not clear any other organization would bring them a deal flow that would match their profile. It's one thing to apply to YC because of their unique approach, I don't think they become any more attractive as a "gateway" to other possible investors. In part because most other investors are going to have different strengths, different criteria, and a much different investment strategy and engagement model. YC might support a "franchise model" based on location if they could qualify other investment teams that could take advantage of their model. But a lot of the attraction may have less to with methodology and process and more to do with the specific expertise and connections of YC's founders.

shawndrost 19y ago
"What is the problem you are trying to solve?" -- Every seed-level investor must build an applicant pool. Every company seeking seed funding must apply to many investors. This is massively inefficient, and functionally, I suspect this means that most potential seed-level investors and seed-level funding attempts fizzle, or select bad matches. I am proposing that YC open the application database after they've made their selections. (They don't want their applicants poached, so I wouldn't suggest they do it earlier.) This costs YC little: they've already passed on the deals. It cannot hurt other seed firms, and might prove useful to some. "I don't think they become any more attractive as a "gateway" to other possible investors" -- that seems to be the dominant response here. As a potential applicant, I disagree: I don't think the application is worth keeping secret, and I think other seed/angel investors might take a look if they suddenly had access to a big bunch of applications, and I'd be happy to get an email from one of them that was particularly interested in my project.

shawndrost 19y ago

"What is the problem you are trying to solve?" -- Every seed-level investor must build an applicant pool. Every company seeking seed funding must apply to many investors. This is massively inefficient, and functionally, I suspect this means that most potential seed-level investors and seed-level funding attempts fizzle, or select bad matches. I am proposing that YC open the application database after they've made their selections. (They don't want their applicants poached, so I wouldn't suggest they do it earlier.) This costs YC little: they've already passed on the deals. It cannot hurt other seed firms, and might prove useful to some. "I don't think they become any more attractive as a "gateway" to other possible investors" -- that seems to be the dominant response here. As a potential applicant, I disagree: I don't think the application is worth keeping secret, and I think other seed/angel investors might take a look if they suddenly had access to a big bunch of applications, and I'd be happy to get an email from one of them that was particularly interested in my project.