3 ms·
We've definitely missed good startups. But one advantage of having so many competitors is that we're much more likely now to learn when we screw up. When a st
by pg 17y ago
We've definitely missed good startups. But one advantage of having so many competitors is that we're much more likely now to learn when we screw up. When a startup from one of the other YC-like organizations does well, I often check their YC application to see how we missed them. Usually it's because they were good guys but working on a terrible idea, which they later changed. So in response to that we now make a conscious effort to pay less attention to the idea and more to the people when we read applications.
- csomar 17y agoBut people change as the idea do, no?
- p6 17y agoSo in other words the rejects can now infer its because they suck, and not just their idea.
- froo 17y agoOk, what about if the opposite was true? How do you handle situations where the idea is (in your opinion) great but the person is perhaps lacking for whatever reason? Is this a situation where you pass or do you take a proverbial punt? Have you done so in the past (don't need to name names to save someone's ego)
- pg 17y agoWe wouldn't fund a group if the founders were really lacking, e.g. if they seemed uncommitted, or not smart enough to build whatever they were planning to.
- froo 17y agoCheers for the reply Paul
- cperciva 17y agowe now make a conscious effort to pay less attention to the idea and more to the people ... We wouldn't fund [people who were] not smart enough to build whatever they were planning to These comments don't seem entirely non-contradictory. Wouldn't you ever say "I don't think you're smart enough to make that work, but how about working on a less ambitious problem"?