28 ms·

They should have funded 306 start-up with 1 million instead. I'm european and I'm ashamed.

• pg 19y ago
  YC could fund 17,486 startups with that money. ($306 million is almost exactly the square of the amount we invest in the average startup.) Maybe you wouldn't want to spend it all on seed rounds. But $306 million spent well would be enough to make a startup hub to rival Silicon Valley.
  • scw 19y ago
    The $316m could accomplish much, but I doubt directly creating a startup hub. The drivers which turn cities into creative class meccas wouldn't be included, and it likely would face the same difficulties as the Middle East's education plans: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/education/11global.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/education/11global.html It would a powerful change if groups like Gates' (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120113473219511791.html http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120113473219511...) began investing in the efforts which have the best chance of the results they're seeking: startups. I'm guessing the startup model is antithetical to what BillsG sees as the answer, which is unfortunate.
    • pg 19y ago
      Obviously I'd choose whatever town was most SF-like. Suppose only 1/10 of the startups lived (a very conservative assumption). Don't you think a city with 1749 startups in it would feel like a startup hub?
  • Tichy 19y ago
    Would you (pg) scale to 17486 startups, though? Anyway, I loathe this waste of tax money.
    • pg 19y ago
      Not directly. But if I (a) worked on nothing else, (b) did it over 10 years, and (c) trained the earlier founders to help the later ones, I could just about manage it.