4 ms·

Drew's case shows how hard it is to generalize. We're generally reluctant to fund single founders. And yet the most successful startup we've funded had a sing

by pg 15y ago

Drew's case shows how hard it is to generalize. We're generally reluctant to fund single founders. And yet the most successful startup we've funded had a single founder at the time he applied: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html We strongly encouraged Drew to get a cofounder, and he found Arash before the summer 2007 cycle began. Arash turned out to be the perfect cofounder. So Dropbox is pretty much the best case scenario for a single founder applying to YC. And the variation in startup outcomes is so great that even though we have such a large data set, the best single founder outcome is so far better than any of the multiple founder outcomes. This is why one of our rules is that we'll break any of our rules.

0x12 15y ago
That application is a joy to read. One answer stands out for me, it probably was instrumental in the eventual success for dropbox: # Do any founders have other commitments between June and August 2007 inclusive? > No; I've given notice at Bit9 to work on this full time regardless of YC funding. That's really great. Drew had already decided to push ahead, with or without YC, he basically positioned himself to negotiate from strength, in turn increasing his chances of getting funded by YC. That's showing a lot of business savvy there. Instead of coming 'cap in hand' he's telling YC: "If you want on board you may, but the train will run regardless."
- pg 15y ago
  That does count for a lot with us. It's surprising how many of the groups who apply have a cofounder who's not willing to quit his or her job. It's a worrying sign when someone who knows the company a lot better than we do isn't willing to bet on it. But again, there are always exceptions.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  That's just common sense. I am not encouraging dishonesty, but I think you would be a fool to expect funding and not answer that question in this way. I actually assumed that question is in there just to weed out applicants. Edit: More specifically, the "If we don't fund you, will you do it anyway" question.
mkramlich 15y ago
> This is why one of our rules is that we'll break any of our rules. which is also how DNA and gene machinery work. for good (beneficial mutations) and bad (cancer)

by pg 15y ago

0x12 15y ago

That application is a joy to read. One answer stands out for me, it probably was instrumental in the eventual success for dropbox: # Do any founders have other commitments between June and August 2007 inclusive? > No; I've given notice at Bit9 to work on this full time regardless of YC funding. That's really great. Drew had already decided to push ahead, with or without YC, he basically positioned himself to negotiate from strength, in turn increasing his chances of getting funded by YC. That's showing a lot of business savvy there. Instead of coming 'cap in hand' he's telling YC: "If you want on board you may, but the train will run regardless."

pg 15y ago
That does count for a lot with us. It's surprising how many of the groups who apply have a cofounder who's not willing to quit his or her job. It's a worrying sign when someone who knows the company a lot better than we do isn't willing to bet on it. But again, there are always exceptions.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
That's just common sense. I am not encouraging dishonesty, but I think you would be a fool to expect funding and not answer that question in this way. I actually assumed that question is in there just to weed out applicants. Edit: More specifically, the "If we don't fund you, will you do it anyway" question.

mkramlich 15y ago

> This is why one of our rules is that we'll break any of our rules. which is also how DNA and gene machinery work. for good (beneficial mutations) and bad (cancer)