4 ms·

I think the guy’s aesthetic just turns people off here. He seems intensely invested in how to make virality happen in any way possible, and building simplistic

I think the guy’s aesthetic just turns people off here. He seems intensely invested in how to make virality happen in any way possible, and building simplistic stuff that’s not advancing the state of tech. People here want to see technical contributions and organic success. It’s kind of ironic since this is a forum made by a VC company, but I doubt the Tony guy could get into YC with his ideas, despite his 70k followers and 40k mrr.

noident 3y ago
Why would Tony want to get into YC? He's already making enough money that he "hit the brakes" while answering to no one. Sounds like a better deal to me than being some tech gazillionaire's sharecropper.
- shrimpx 3y ago
  Was just talking myself through why this forum would be unfriendly to this guy Tony. A forum that is run by YCombinator, a company that presumably values entrepreneurship. And my take is that both this forum and YC are fairly aligned on "high impact" ideas and don't value people like Tony, monetizing basic ideas using social media influence.
  - manicennui 3y ago
    Really? Most YC startups do not seem to be high impact.
  - kyawzazaw 3y ago
    YC == high impact? Have you seen the cohorts of startups YC has funded?
    - shrimpx 3y ago
      Point taken. I think they strive for high impact, at least high market impact, in the application phase. What they end up with doesn't reflect what they want, kind of by definition. The extreme majority of YC startups fail.
imiric 3y ago
What was eye opening to me about his story is that it doesn't take a "disruptive" product to achieve _moderate_ amounts of success. And I do stress _moderate_, since the traditional VC formula popularized by YC is that companies are meant to grow infinitely YoY, making all shareholders rich far beyond their needs, and if there's no growth, then investors aren't happy. That's a skewed hypercapitalist perspective that continues to concentrate wealth among the wealthy, and, among many other issues, corrupts the product development into pleasing the investors rather than the customers. Instead, a single person today can create a moderate amount of income that allows them to live free from financial concerns, by building small and useful products that are not revolutionary in any way, but help many people regardless. This is a far more sustainable and fairer way of achieving "success" than the VC formula, so this Tony guy probably doesn't care about YC.
- nico_h 3y ago
  I mean 45k MRR with 90% profit is far from moderate success when compared to US minimum wage (or even of a more civilized country like Switzerland where it’s $4k), especially when living in moderate or low cost of living locations like Vietnam or Bali (he also mentions Lisbon but i doubt the CoL is comparable to vietnam) Especially when working only “4” hours a day. I think the only concern with something like that is the sustainable lifetime of the product, seems to me you have to re-invent the business every few years if you want to keep your solopreneur story going ( the product grows beyond the solo part or gets overtaken by the competition).
  - imiric 3y ago
    I meant "moderate" as relative to the kind of wealth that VC-funded companies can achieve, which I would label as "excessive". Obviously, 45k MRR exceeds even high wage standards in wealthy countries, but then again, even those wages hardly allow people to achieve financial independence. They're enough for them to be profitable to the government, and to maintain a decent way of life, but they still have to be mindful about their expenses, investments and financial status. 45k MRR means that you and your loved ones are safe from money being an issue in any situation, which is a liberating way to live. It doesn't allow you to own mansions, yachts and private jets, but I would argue that such wealth is disproportionate for any individual to manage. If they can maintain this by working 4 hours a day, more power to them. That's an enviable position to be in by any definition, especially if they got there by legitimate means. I agree that long-term sustainability might be a problem, but they seem to have the drive to keep supporting the products for as long as possible, and the ingenuity and skills to invent new ones, and hopefully the wisdom of investment, so they'll be fine. It's doubtful this would work for many others, but as they point out, this is their own journey.
icedchai 3y ago
He doesn't need investors. Why would he bother?
- shrimpx 3y ago
  I don't think he would or should. I was just thinking if he applied, he probably wouldn't get in.
pc86 3y ago
Very few of YC's companies have done anything to "advance the state of tech," especially the successful ones. According to their website the top three by revenue are Airbnb, Instacart, and Doordash.

noident 3y ago

Why would Tony want to get into YC? He's already making enough money that he "hit the brakes" while answering to no one. Sounds like a better deal to me than being some tech gazillionaire's sharecropper.

shrimpx 3y ago
Was just talking myself through why this forum would be unfriendly to this guy Tony. A forum that is run by YCombinator, a company that presumably values entrepreneurship. And my take is that both this forum and YC are fairly aligned on "high impact" ideas and don't value people like Tony, monetizing basic ideas using social media influence.
- manicennui 3y ago
  Really? Most YC startups do not seem to be high impact.
- kyawzazaw 3y ago
  YC == high impact? Have you seen the cohorts of startups YC has funded?
  - shrimpx 3y ago
    Point taken. I think they strive for high impact, at least high market impact, in the application phase. What they end up with doesn't reflect what they want, kind of by definition. The extreme majority of YC startups fail.

imiric 3y ago

What was eye opening to me about his story is that it doesn't take a "disruptive" product to achieve _moderate_ amounts of success. And I do stress _moderate_, since the traditional VC formula popularized by YC is that companies are meant to grow infinitely YoY, making all shareholders rich far beyond their needs, and if there's no growth, then investors aren't happy. That's a skewed hypercapitalist perspective that continues to concentrate wealth among the wealthy, and, among many other issues, corrupts the product development into pleasing the investors rather than the customers. Instead, a single person today can create a moderate amount of income that allows them to live free from financial concerns, by building small and useful products that are not revolutionary in any way, but help many people regardless. This is a far more sustainable and fairer way of achieving "success" than the VC formula, so this Tony guy probably doesn't care about YC.

nico_h 3y ago
I mean 45k MRR with 90% profit is far from moderate success when compared to US minimum wage (or even of a more civilized country like Switzerland where it’s $4k), especially when living in moderate or low cost of living locations like Vietnam or Bali (he also mentions Lisbon but i doubt the CoL is comparable to vietnam) Especially when working only “4” hours a day. I think the only concern with something like that is the sustainable lifetime of the product, seems to me you have to re-invent the business every few years if you want to keep your solopreneur story going ( the product grows beyond the solo part or gets overtaken by the competition).
- imiric 3y ago
  I meant "moderate" as relative to the kind of wealth that VC-funded companies can achieve, which I would label as "excessive". Obviously, 45k MRR exceeds even high wage standards in wealthy countries, but then again, even those wages hardly allow people to achieve financial independence. They're enough for them to be profitable to the government, and to maintain a decent way of life, but they still have to be mindful about their expenses, investments and financial status. 45k MRR means that you and your loved ones are safe from money being an issue in any situation, which is a liberating way to live. It doesn't allow you to own mansions, yachts and private jets, but I would argue that such wealth is disproportionate for any individual to manage. If they can maintain this by working 4 hours a day, more power to them. That's an enviable position to be in by any definition, especially if they got there by legitimate means. I agree that long-term sustainability might be a problem, but they seem to have the drive to keep supporting the products for as long as possible, and the ingenuity and skills to invent new ones, and hopefully the wisdom of investment, so they'll be fine. It's doubtful this would work for many others, but as they point out, this is their own journey.

icedchai 3y ago

He doesn't need investors. Why would he bother?

shrimpx 3y ago
I don't think he would or should. I was just thinking if he applied, he probably wouldn't get in.

pc86 3y ago

Very few of YC's companies have done anything to "advance the state of tech," especially the successful ones. According to their website the top three by revenue are Airbnb, Instacart, and Doordash.