3 ms·
This seems to fit a continuous change in YC and perhaps tech in general. YC doesn't seem so eager to fund 1000 startups so that 2 of them become unicorns anymor
by d--b 9y ago
This seems to fit a continuous change in YC and perhaps tech in general. YC doesn't seem so eager to fund 1000 startups so that 2 of them become unicorns anymore.
It's more like they want to fund 1000 startups so that 100 are sustainable.
We don't hear moonshot or billion dollar market depth or hyper growth as much as we used
Anyone feeling the same?
- jacquesm 9y ago> It's more like they want to fund 1000 startups so that 100 are sustainable. That's actually good, not bad. 100 companies that work out long term are much better for the founders involved than two that are unicorns.
- d--b 9y agoI agree it's way better! I think in PG times, the idea was: aim for the moon, it's hard but if it doesn't work out you'll find plenty of well paid jobs. But now the market is so overcrowded that if you aim for the moon and fail, you'll mostly look like moron, and will have a hard time finding a gig. Just gut feelings though, I have no numbers nor people to talk to.
- wellboy 9y agoGood for the founders but bad for YC, since they miss out on moonshots if they aren't optimizing for moonshots (which make up 90% of their valuation) no?
- crispytx 9y agoI don't think that's the case. Pretty sure they're still hunting unicorns and consider the rest of the companies a cost of doing business.