3 ms·

What you call a "loser attitude" is what I'd call being realistic. A lot of people get a little too caught up in the hype and hubris associated with startups, b

What you call a "loser attitude" is what I'd call being realistic. A lot of people get a little too caught up in the hype and hubris associated with startups, but its important to look at issues from both the positive and negative sides. For example, you can take a rejection from YC and say "Gee, we got this far, there's something to this idea, we should definitely keep working on it" and you'd be right. But you can also say "Gee, we couldn't get into with YC their (relatively) lower standards, how are we ever gonna impress an Angel/VC?" and you'll also be correct. So I'm just trying to be honest here. YC would have provided a great vote of confidence needed to put in a monumental effort into this (ie, quit jobs, take huge financial risk etc). Now we'll keep working on it and put it out, and maybe that vote of confidence will come in the form of enough users and growth to convince us to really get into this. Or maybe we've been wrong all along, all the criticisms correct and the thing will fizzle out. But mindless hyperbole of the "we'll keep going no matter what and change the world" does little but stroke your ego, which I personally hate.

SwellJoe 19y ago
"But you can also say "Gee, we couldn't get into with YC their (relatively) lower standards, how are we ever gonna impress an Angel/VC?" and you'll also be correct." I would argue that YC standards are, and can be, higher. They see a lot more companies each year than most VCs. They can't see as much of the potential of the founders because it is so early in the process...but they have a lot more to choose from, so they're able to pick the ones that seem about to explode from excitement about their business and seem smart enough and dedicated enough to deliver it. pg has said that investors (including him) invest in businesses that are like a train leaving the station, whether the investor is on-board or not. Investors hate to miss a success, even more than they hate to bet on a failure, so if you aren't convinced of your own success with or without one particular investor, you aren't what they are looking for. It seems to me that you probably weren't convincing on this point.

SwellJoe 19y ago

"But you can also say "Gee, we couldn't get into with YC their (relatively) lower standards, how are we ever gonna impress an Angel/VC?" and you'll also be correct." I would argue that YC standards are, and can be, higher. They see a lot more companies each year than most VCs. They can't see as much of the potential of the founders because it is so early in the process...but they have a lot more to choose from, so they're able to pick the ones that seem about to explode from excitement about their business and seem smart enough and dedicated enough to deliver it. pg has said that investors (including him) invest in businesses that are like a train leaving the station, whether the investor is on-board or not. Investors hate to miss a success, even more than they hate to bet on a failure, so if you aren't convinced of your own success with or without one particular investor, you aren't what they are looking for. It seems to me that you probably weren't convincing on this point.