4 ms·

Thanks Jacques. I don’t read any malice in your words and I certainly don’t mean to sound dismissive. My point was simply that, as a matter of strategy, it wo

Thanks Jacques. I don’t read any malice in your words and I certainly don’t mean to sound dismissive. My point was simply that, as a matter of strategy, it would not be in YC’s interest to “vertically integrate” as you suggest. And I can assure you it’s not in our plans. I also don’t believe that YC’s actions have a profound impact on how growth stage companies are perceived by investors because these companies thrive or suffer based on their own measured performance rather than based on YC’s signal. I think a lot of your comments on this thread were quite smart, but wanted to add some color on these two points

jacquesm 9y ago
> My point was simply that, as a matter of strategy, it would not be in YC’s interest to “vertically integrate” as you suggest. Why do you believe this to be the case? YC has sucked a substantial amount of oxygen out of the lower tiers, to the point where no matter where in the world you are as an early stage investor YC competes. What in particular do you feel will stop YC from doing the same thing for higher tiers, where - as far as I can see it - the only differentiating factor is the size of the tickets?
- arowghani 9y ago
  We won’t compete for traditional Series A deals because it would damage our core program to do so. It would be self-defeating to try to “vertically integrate” and disrupt the vibrant investor ecosystem that we have cultivated around Demo Day. Not to mention the fact that founders would hate us for denying them the ability to choose their own investors if, as you write, we made Demo Day “disappear” in order to compel founders take more money from us.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Ok, but you could do a better job than traditional VCs, just like what you did with the original program. So: better alignment of interest between founders and capital providers, better terms and so on. Just like right now YC does not have exclusivity in the early stage, it could be a viable alternative, and if that viable alternative has better terms and other intangibles it could easily work out as a win-win for both founders and YC. Demo day would then shift down the road to series B and later. Anyway, that is just speculation. Thank you for taking the time to answer me.
    - arowghani 9y ago
      My pleasure!

jacquesm 9y ago

> My point was simply that, as a matter of strategy, it would not be in YC’s interest to “vertically integrate” as you suggest. Why do you believe this to be the case? YC has sucked a substantial amount of oxygen out of the lower tiers, to the point where no matter where in the world you are as an early stage investor YC competes. What in particular do you feel will stop YC from doing the same thing for higher tiers, where - as far as I can see it - the only differentiating factor is the size of the tickets?

arowghani 9y ago
We won’t compete for traditional Series A deals because it would damage our core program to do so. It would be self-defeating to try to “vertically integrate” and disrupt the vibrant investor ecosystem that we have cultivated around Demo Day. Not to mention the fact that founders would hate us for denying them the ability to choose their own investors if, as you write, we made Demo Day “disappear” in order to compel founders take more money from us.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Ok, but you could do a better job than traditional VCs, just like what you did with the original program. So: better alignment of interest between founders and capital providers, better terms and so on. Just like right now YC does not have exclusivity in the early stage, it could be a viable alternative, and if that viable alternative has better terms and other intangibles it could easily work out as a win-win for both founders and YC. Demo day would then shift down the road to series B and later. Anyway, that is just speculation. Thank you for taking the time to answer me.
  - arowghani 9y ago
    My pleasure!