I don't think this is the right measuring stick. The only thing growing the incubator does is add to their expenditures, in a small way dilute the 'YC' bump fo

I don't think this is the right measuring stick. The only thing growing the incubator does is add to their expenditures, in a small way dilute the 'YC' bump for admitted companies (just think what Harvard would be like if they accepted 20k instead of 1k), spreads the partners a little bit thinner, etc. The counterargument would be that, if they could expand like this and still keep roughly the same batting avg., all of this would just mean even more returns for YC. The problem is we haven't observed THAT part of the equation yet. When it comes to these startups, swinging and missing is not nearly as costly as not being part of the ones who do succeed, so at first glance there is an argument to be made that growth in it of itself is a good thing 'cause it allows you to make more bets. But, clearly there is a sweetspot, or else the right VC strategy would be to hardly spend any time with companies at all and just make small bets in anything that's even remotely viable, thereby getting a "market rate" return for startups. For all I know, that number is negative, so you unfortunately do have to find value by doing better than market basket -- either by selecting companies well or contributing positively to their chance of success. And that, sadly, gets harder to do the bigger you get. Jury is still out on his effectiveness as VC, but looking from the outside, one thing you can say for sure is that they are working really hard and pushing initiatives which you can't help but be very excited about.