The statements regarding YC in the article don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Firstly: > Y Combinator has a rigorous vetting process topped off by an exclu

The statements regarding YC in the article don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Firstly: > Y Combinator has a rigorous vetting process topped off by an exclusive demo day with "selected investors." I don't think anyone whose been through the YC interview process would describe it as rigorous. It's streamlined, and I suspect design it minimize false negative rate while spending a minimal amount of time reviewing companies. They have a huge number of companies to evaluate. Personally can't imagine they spend more than 30mins evaluating each company (including the interview). Then later in the article: > The most serious accusation is that DreamWorld only got its Y Combinator backing through nepotism. According to Upton, a senior employee at Y Combinator claims that Bellack has a friend in the accelerator who helped greenlight DreamWorld without the appropriate due diligence I don't know what "appropriate due diligence" is here. I don't think YC generally check references, or dive into code... maybe a quick look at the demo in the 10m interview? It probably helps knowing people on the panel. > "[DreamWorld] wasn't vetted. They apparently had nothing to show on demo day, and they were still allowed through." Doesn't make sense to me. Do YC ban companies from demo day if they don't have enough to show? It's not part initial DD? Have they raised from demo day investors?