2 ms·
Very interesting question. I would do it more emphatically, for one. The first couple batches we were pretty tentative, because we didn't know it was going to
by pg 16y ago
Very interesting question. I would do it more emphatically, for one. The first couple batches we were pretty tentative, because we didn't know it was going to work.
It's painful to consider whether it would have been best to do YC in SV year round from the start. I loved alternating between the two places. I still miss living in Cambridge. And yet the founders in the Boston batches probably were getting short shrift. The startup community in Boston is so much smaller. We could never have organized something like Angel Day; there just aren't enough good angels. We wouldn't even have had enough alumni in Boston, because most of the successful ones used to move to the Valley.
You can figure out what we'd do differently by what we've changed. We give startups more money on average, but we don't give them any more for having more than 3 founders. Jessica now strongly encourages vesting, not to protect us, but to give startups a predefined way to deal with founders leaving. Interviews and Demo Day presentations are now much shorter, and I'd keep both short even if it weren't necessary for scale. We look more at the people and less at the idea when making funding decisions. We've added a bunch of protections against good groups falling through the cracks in applications. But we haven't changed that much structurally. We've made a lot of mistakes, but they've mostly been one-offs, like funding startups we shouldn't have, or not funding startups we should.
- jacquesm 16y ago> like funding startups we shouldn't have, or not funding startups we should. Examples?