9 ms·

>It's hard to argue that it hasn't been an unalloyed good for founders. I can't agree with this without knowing who is on what list and why. There's way too mu

>It's hard to argue that it hasn't been an unalloyed good for founders. I can't agree with this without knowing who is on what list and why. There's way too much room for bad judgement to get in the way. Having said that, I'm making a very minor point here, since of course you can say the same about every single business and who they will or won't work with.

tptacek 9y ago
If you don't trust YC to be pro-founder, then you should be very concerned about YC, because they're enormously powerful. I can't convince you either way. It would be pointless to debate it. Reasonable people might disagree. I'll only say that I don't know any founders, including people who have gone through YC and not felt they got much out of it, that don't agree with me that YC is far, far on the "founder" site of the "founder vs. capital" spectrum. I have less respect for the argument that YC might be pro-founder but would prioritize some secret conspiracy to inflate harassment claims above the welfare of their portfolio companies. (I don't see you making that argument, just heading it off.) For what it's worth: I have no connection to YC, and am openly critical of Sam Altman.
- elmar 9y ago
  When the exit its very low value and investors fight for the scraps YC donates is shares to the founders, in my opinion it doesn't get more founder friendly than this.
  - koolba 9y ago
    Are there public examples of this?
    - elmar 9y ago
      It as been disclosed by Sam Altman on this talk https://youtu.be/Y0zbiyIEqX0 https://youtu.be/Y0zbiyIEqX0 (Sorry at the moment I don't remember the specific timeframe)
- loceng 9y ago
  I am more curious what their criteria is for adding someone to the list would be. Is it simply number of reports? Do they give a warning to a person if they received 1 single report, and then if they receive more over the years then they get added? Bad behaviour usually continues in part because a person believes they're getting away with it. If there's an early signal that they're in fact not getting away with it, then that would be beneficial to everyone for them to hear about it - the person harassing and the community at large.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    They're probably not going to tell you.
    - mbesto 9y ago
      And that in and of itself is part of the problem of why these lists are hard to create and maintain. The problem here has less to do about YC maintaining a list and more to do about the people reporting incidents to YC. Sorry, but people are ruthless, and I can see this being abused by founders who may feel vengeful they didn't get funded. If the list was based on convicted sexual harassers, then so be it, but if it's based on feedback reviews, it'll be ripe for abuse. This is going to have tricky sociological impacts in the VC community that won't actually solve the problem.
      - rosser 9y ago
        The presumption here is that the list will be abused by founders more than the VCs it was explicitly created to enumerate do their position vis a vis founders. I think that attitude is no small part of why this problem is as deeply rooted as it is. That is: which is the greater harm? Founders getting abused by VCs without this list, or VCs getting accused by founders with it? Maybe it reflects my categories and biases more than reality, but I know which way I'm inclined to err, there.
        ams6110 9y ago
- pw 9y ago
  So you know founders that went through YC and don't feel like they got much out of it? I wouldn't want you to break any confidences, but I'd be interested in hearing more such folks and what they think of YC.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - landon32 9y ago
    I would love to hear more as well. First thought is that if pretty experienced founders who are starting a company in a space YC isn't experienced in(e.g. biotech 5 years ago) went through it they might not get much out of it.
  - mrkurt 9y ago
    I spent a lot of time getting peoples' takes on their yc experiences back in like 2011. What I found is that no one really says "yc was bad for us". Even companies that didn't survive got immediate press credibility, money, etc. If you think about it, the worst case for a company that goes through yc is that it's neutral. They can't really hurt anything — when companies fail (or struggle) it's never because of yc. There are hundreds of reasons companies fail. So the tl;dr; is that people probably won't ever say "yc was bad for us", and companies that come out doing well won't think "yc wasn't great for us".
- simonebrunozzi 9y ago
  Curious to hear your point of view on Sam Altman. I don't know him personally (only met him twice at public events), but from what I have read and listened, I tend to like him a lot. Your perspective might be really useful.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    He seems like he might be a fun person to get tapas with. I don't have a personal problem with him.
moomin 9y ago
There's always a list. Sometimes it's in people's heads, sometimes it's on paper. Sometimes it's in a computer. In the UK, people can ask to see any information on them stored on a computer. Which is why blacklists are done on cardfile even today.

tptacek 9y ago

If you don't trust YC to be pro-founder, then you should be very concerned about YC, because they're enormously powerful. I can't convince you either way. It would be pointless to debate it. Reasonable people might disagree. I'll only say that I don't know any founders, including people who have gone through YC and not felt they got much out of it, that don't agree with me that YC is far, far on the "founder" site of the "founder vs. capital" spectrum. I have less respect for the argument that YC might be pro-founder but would prioritize some secret conspiracy to inflate harassment claims above the welfare of their portfolio companies. (I don't see you making that argument, just heading it off.) For what it's worth: I have no connection to YC, and am openly critical of Sam Altman.

elmar 9y ago
When the exit its very low value and investors fight for the scraps YC donates is shares to the founders, in my opinion it doesn't get more founder friendly than this.
- koolba 9y ago
  Are there public examples of this?
  - elmar 9y ago
    It as been disclosed by Sam Altman on this talk https://youtu.be/Y0zbiyIEqX0 https://youtu.be/Y0zbiyIEqX0 (Sorry at the moment I don't remember the specific timeframe)
loceng 9y ago
I am more curious what their criteria is for adding someone to the list would be. Is it simply number of reports? Do they give a warning to a person if they received 1 single report, and then if they receive more over the years then they get added? Bad behaviour usually continues in part because a person believes they're getting away with it. If there's an early signal that they're in fact not getting away with it, then that would be beneficial to everyone for them to hear about it - the person harassing and the community at large.
- tptacek 9y ago
  They're probably not going to tell you.
  - mbesto 9y ago
    And that in and of itself is part of the problem of why these lists are hard to create and maintain. The problem here has less to do about YC maintaining a list and more to do about the people reporting incidents to YC. Sorry, but people are ruthless, and I can see this being abused by founders who may feel vengeful they didn't get funded. If the list was based on convicted sexual harassers, then so be it, but if it's based on feedback reviews, it'll be ripe for abuse. This is going to have tricky sociological impacts in the VC community that won't actually solve the problem.
    - rosser 9y ago
      The presumption here is that the list will be abused by founders more than the VCs it was explicitly created to enumerate do their position vis a vis founders. I think that attitude is no small part of why this problem is as deeply rooted as it is. That is: which is the greater harm? Founders getting abused by VCs without this list, or VCs getting accused by founders with it? Maybe it reflects my categories and biases more than reality, but I know which way I'm inclined to err, there.
      - ams6110 9y ago
pw 9y ago
So you know founders that went through YC and don't feel like they got much out of it? I wouldn't want you to break any confidences, but I'd be interested in hearing more such folks and what they think of YC.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- landon32 9y ago
  I would love to hear more as well. First thought is that if pretty experienced founders who are starting a company in a space YC isn't experienced in(e.g. biotech 5 years ago) went through it they might not get much out of it.
- mrkurt 9y ago
  I spent a lot of time getting peoples' takes on their yc experiences back in like 2011. What I found is that no one really says "yc was bad for us". Even companies that didn't survive got immediate press credibility, money, etc. If you think about it, the worst case for a company that goes through yc is that it's neutral. They can't really hurt anything — when companies fail (or struggle) it's never because of yc. There are hundreds of reasons companies fail. So the tl;dr; is that people probably won't ever say "yc was bad for us", and companies that come out doing well won't think "yc wasn't great for us".
simonebrunozzi 9y ago
Curious to hear your point of view on Sam Altman. I don't know him personally (only met him twice at public events), but from what I have read and listened, I tend to like him a lot. Your perspective might be really useful.
- tptacek 9y ago
  He seems like he might be a fun person to get tapas with. I don't have a personal problem with him.

moomin 9y ago

There's always a list. Sometimes it's in people's heads, sometimes it's on paper. Sometimes it's in a computer. In the UK, people can ask to see any information on them stored on a computer. Which is why blacklists are done on cardfile even today.