3 ms·

We're all for companies doing what they need to do to survive. However, we've seen an increasing number of accelerators getting startups to join them by saying

by sama 11y ago

We're all for companies doing what they need to do to survive. However, we've seen an increasing number of accelerators getting startups to join them by saying "we can help you get into YC", and then subsequently hurting the company with bad advice or onerous terms. Companies should never do an accelerator to help them get into YC. Companies should do an accelerator if they need the money to survive or think that they resources of the accelerator will help them be more successful.

Outdoorsman 11y ago
Exactly..
baldajan 11y ago
I 100% agree with that message, but I didn't feel your post conveyed that. My impressions of the post was a broad painting that all other accelerators are bad, even though I know that's not your intent. I think a lesser emphasis on getting into YC and making the post more of "how to judge an accelerator" would have been better.
- sama 11y ago
  Fair point; I updated the post.
jacquesm 11y ago
Well, essentially they're doing to YC what accelerators have been doing to venture capital. This is not 100% comparable but it is kind of logical that with a successful program like YC that there would spring up an industry trying to make bank on becoming a pipeline into that successful program. The better way to deal with that would be to say that you want to emphasize simply that your chances are decreased if the previous investors / accelerator / your mom made your company less interesting and / or term wise unpalatable. You might even go into detail about the kinds of terms and the kinds of advice that you feel are particular reasons to not be accepted, this might save a lot of founders a lot of grief, even the ones that did not decide to apply to YC because it comes from a respected voice in the industry rather than from some cornered cash strapped founder during the negotiations with a party much more savvy and powerful.

by sama 11y ago

Outdoorsman 11y ago

Exactly..

baldajan 11y ago

I 100% agree with that message, but I didn't feel your post conveyed that. My impressions of the post was a broad painting that all other accelerators are bad, even though I know that's not your intent. I think a lesser emphasis on getting into YC and making the post more of "how to judge an accelerator" would have been better.

sama 11y ago
Fair point; I updated the post.

jacquesm 11y ago

Well, essentially they're doing to YC what accelerators have been doing to venture capital. This is not 100% comparable but it is kind of logical that with a successful program like YC that there would spring up an industry trying to make bank on becoming a pipeline into that successful program. The better way to deal with that would be to say that you want to emphasize simply that your chances are decreased if the previous investors / accelerator / your mom made your company less interesting and / or term wise unpalatable. You might even go into detail about the kinds of terms and the kinds of advice that you feel are particular reasons to not be accepted, this might save a lot of founders a lot of grief, even the ones that did not decide to apply to YC because it comes from a respected voice in the industry rather than from some cornered cash strapped founder during the negotiations with a party much more savvy and powerful.