11 ms·

Re: "won't get in" How do I balance this encouraging advice with everything I've heard online about YC basically being a post-Ivy League thing? Seems like ther

by _akhe 2y ago

Re: "won't get in" How do I balance this encouraging advice with everything I've heard online about YC basically being a post-Ivy League thing? Seems like there's basically a 0% chance a random person would get into YC. And often those who did get in went to Stanford, Harvard, etc. and don't even have a product - sometimes they don't even know what they're going to build yet. I wrote the idea of VC stuff off long ago. My wife and I have a profitable business here in SF that would be perfect as a startup, but the concept of raising funds to expand literally hasn't even crossed our minds because it seems so geared toward post-grads - like something only Stanford and Harvard people get access to after they graduate. Not only that, we're profitable, and can even articulate a realistic vision about how it becomes the next $100M household name, but the numbers I've read online that most VCs want to see are not realistic - or if we were hitting those numbers I wouldn't even need a VC, we would be able to fund our own expansion. So we're just doing it on our own.

alephnerd 2y ago
> YC basically being a post-Ivy League thing I have a lot of friends of mine who are decade+ YoE first time founders who have done very very well in YC. Lots of Enterprise SaaS companies have went thru YC and done very well - you just don't hear about them as much because Direct Enterprise Sales doesn't require as much marketing. There are similar B2C successes by older founders and non-Ivy/Ivy Tier founders. > we're profitable, and can even articulate a realistic vision about how it becomes the next $100M household name You could easily pitch a Seed or Pre-Seed round depending on the numbers and location right now. I guarantee you that you are a 2nd or 3rd degree connect with plenty of VCs. Leverage that network you have and doors will open The YC label does help to open doors if you don't know or don't have the network to do it. (Note: this advice is US centric)
- tempsy 2y ago
  How many years do you have to go back to find 1 company that is on par with a dropbox or airbnb i feel like if you went back 5 years it would be hard to even find more than 1-2 companies that has achieved a moderate level of mainstream success in the same way
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Consumer != mainstream
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    It takes 10-15 years to successfully IPO an Enterprise/Infra/Cybersecurity SaaS (eg. ZS started in the mid-2000s, work on Rubrik started in the 2013 time period). One notable mid-late state Enterprise firm I've been following is Vanta. Others have been very successful acquihires (eg. Squeen becoming a core part of the Security BU at Datadog). Salt Security is a good product as well, but will most likely be acquihired. Usually, most enterprise companies choose to be acquired because even though the pot of gold at IPO is amazing, it is annoying to work on the same product for 10-15 years (though occasionally you do have startups just being stupid at strategy - looking at you Lacework smh, coulda acquihired Wiz or Orca 4-5 years ago).
dang 2y ago
All I can tell you is it's not true and that's why I posted this! (and if it's true that everything you hear about YC is telling you otherwise, then YC has a serious messaging problem)
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > YC has a serious messaging problem It does. I've met some founders who went with Tribe8 (edit: Team8) or Sequoia Surge due to YC messaging issues and the (imo incorrect) perception that it's B2C or SMB B2B SaaS oriented. The Open-Core RFS will probably help though, but maybe highlighting additional successes beyond B2C or Coinbase types would help.
- _akhe 2y ago
  One of the reasons I like this site is that it feels slightly academic in a way that a competing site like Reddit does not. And being a somewhat exclusive post-academic institution is not a bad image or message IMO. Maybe there are more pros than cons in terms of curation (of content, of founders). Really didn't see it as a "everyone should apply!" kinda place, thought the messaging was intentionally "here's the latest out of Stanford" which I'm fine with.
  - dang 2y ago
    You're right about HN - pg always used to say he wanted it to look 'bookish'. But not for academic reasons. He's just a bibliophile and a massive reader. When it comes to YC, however, I'm way closer to the "everyone should apply" end of the spectrum. Or rather: everyone who thinks they might like to start a high-growth startup. One of YC's biggest impacts has been in growing the number of startups that get created in the first place. It's not so much about picking founders out of a limited pool, it's about the much larger set of potential founders who can maybe get bumped out of the "I could never do that track" into the adjacent "maybe give it a try track"...which can lead to life-changing places. pg's essays have been one of the biggest such bumping devices. I would like HN to be that too. (While remaining interesting in all the other ways it can be.)
    - 2y ago
999900000999 2y ago
I had ambitions of cranking out an MVP and pitching it to VCs in my late 20s. After a year of solid rejection ( including YC not even responding), I gave up. You end up spending alot of time trying to pitch your work. I've had a few idea guys expect me to build MVPs for free with an offer of like 1% or something silly like that. Never any pay, poorly thought out concepts. I've accepted I'm never going to be rich, it's easier this way.
- dang 2y ago
  > YC not even responding The only way that would happen is a bug. YC always responds to applicants. Rejections usually aren't personalized because that can't scale - but not hearing back at all should never happen. If you want me to look into what might have happened there, I'd be willing to try if you email hn@ycombinator.com.
  - 999900000999 2y ago
    Correction, I got a response, but no specific feedback. I double checked my emails. Anyway, I'm realistic in knowing my ideas aren't going to garner investment. I would love if you had a YC Junior for just getting help on ideas vs capital.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      No investor is going to give you specific feedback. Your best bet is to go to onto Reddit, Discord etc, find the startup communities and ask for advice there. There are a lot of people who want to support other founders. Or even better go on Linkedin, find some prospective customers and ask them for advice. I've had about 10% of people reply back some with page long answers. If you are willing to spend money there are plenty of services like Kintell, Intro.co which will allow you to book an hour with investors or successful founders. But there are plenty of free options that I would start with first.
      - anamax 2y ago
        > No investor is going to give you specific feedback. That depends on what you mean by "specific." Several Sand Hill Angels members, who are investors, provide feedback almost every month. (It's in the context of a pitch, but...) See https://www.sandhillangels.com/raw https://www.sandhillangels.com/raw ("pitch practice" is somewhat misleading.) [edited to add some detail] The typical angel-group pitch has three parts, the pitch, the Q&A, and then the "with the entrepreneur out of the room" discussion. This event lets participants listen to that discussion, as well as those three parts for the other folks pitching the same night. Then there's an "ask investors anything" session at the end.
vlod 2y ago
When the startup I co-founders applied to Techstars, we had to fill in the lean canvas diagram and it makes you think and write down a whole bunch of stuff that we were lacking. channels in, user-acquisition strategies etc. That process was super worth it. Ultimately we got rejected, but going forward I'll use that (well I try) to do that when joining/founding any startups. Worst case scenario is they say no, best case scenario... :-)
- dang 2y ago
  I hope you applied to YC as well!
Rapzid 2y ago
The LinkedIn page for a lot of these companies showing you "Where they studied" can be a bit intimidating. Chockablock with Stanford and Ivy League. I was filling out the Co-Founder matching service application and it has a required text area for education. The placeholder text examples? Standford MS in Comp Sci, NYU BS in Physics. As a college dropout with "some college" but a 14+ year career in systems/software engineering roles, that was quite discouraging.
- dang 2y ago
  I'm with you and wish that we were more careful with this sort of signaling risk. However, there are tons of college dropouts and uncredentialed software people who make it in to YC. What I'm basically trying to tell everyone, and hoping to convince a few, is: don't listen to any of this, just do it.
  - Rapzid 2y ago
    I'm also with you! Just wanted to share my experience in case it helps as a data point. Gates, Jobs, and Zuck all famously dropped out of college of course. It's an interesting and tricky social dynamic matching within and between these somewhat distinct groups.
    - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      Didn't they ask drop out from Harvard or something? It's a bit disingenuous to say that.
      - tempusalaria 2y ago
        Steve Jobs went to an obscure private school called Reed which seems to be something he became obsessed with due to LSD. Zuck and Gates both dropped out of Harvard after founding their companies.
        alephnerd 2y ago
loceng 2y ago
Also understand the VC industry is inherent with learning from the ideas submitted to them as part of curating deal flow; and it's common for them to justify it with a mantra that ideas are supposedly not worth anything, and it's all about execution. When and who to share ideas with - and any market traction you may have as proof points there's an opportunity - is possibly the most important part of executing, and where you may be shooting yourself in the foot if sharing that with people in the business of funding ideas.
- _akhe 2y ago
  > VC industry Well said, and you reminded me to be more careful about what I share haha
- andrewstuart 2y ago
  >> ideas are supposedly not worth anything If ideas are worth nothing then a great team executing well should be able to create a billion dollar company selling dog droppings. Anyone who says ideas are worth nothing is flat out wrong.
  - dang 2y ago
    I think the claim is rather that idea is not the high-order bit in an early-stage startup funding decision; founders are. There's no success without eventually finding a good idea, especially since 'successful in the end' is practically the definition of 'good idea', or close enough to be inseparable. So it's not so much "ideas don't matter" as "starting ideas don't matter", as long as you're the type of founder who can excecute on an idea, change it as needed, and drop it when necessary.
    - andrewstuart 2y ago
      A great idea is incredibly valuable. In fact the idea is the key to great success. However, it is true that without great execution, timing and luck, a great idea will go nowhere. Trouble is there are many people who have heard "ideas are worth nothing" and failed to understand that the full sentence is "ideas are worth nothing without execution" - that is certainly true, but it is a totally different statement to "ideas are worth nothing".
jacobwg 2y ago
I mean, I didn't even graduate college :P > So we're just doing it on our own. IMO if you can become a $100M household name without VC, that's absolutely the way to do it. Even if you do take the VC path, YC for me was a massive boost in network, knowledge, and resources that I didn't have before, but it's also not the only way to acquire those things. You can even find that YC knowledge online, e.g. https://www.startupschool.org/ https://www.startupschool.org/. That said, if anyone's even considering applying to YC, I'd recommend it, at a minimum it's a forcing function to think more deeply about your idea or business when assembling the application.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  > I mean, I didn't even graduate college :P Yes, but did you go to one of those colleges where dropping out is even better than graduating? Because most of us didn't even get the chance to drop out of one of those.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I'm a YC founder and I dropped out of not-one-of-those colleges (RPI). My cofounder dropped out of high school. Why not just give it a shot? Find the powerful parts of your story (I'm sure they exist) and share them! We applied, as GP advocates for, mostly to sharpen our thinking. Just the application process would've been worth the time, even if we had gotten declined immediately. The interview 10x'd that value, then the YC batch itself was another multiple on top of that.
    - _delirium 2y ago
      I would definitely count RPI as one of "those" colleges! I guess everyone has a different list, but for me, RPI is in the same category as Rose-Hulman, Olin, Harvey Mudd, etc. Perhaps not Ivy League level in the sense of being a household name, but still known among people in the field.
      - tobinfricke 2y ago
threeseed 2y ago
> Seems like there's basically a 0% chance a random person would get into YC This is simply not true. There are countless examples of people from outside the US or who went to non-Ivy league schools. Does it move the needle ? Probably. But it's easy to counteract it by having better answers to the other questions e.g. traction, team.
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  It’s not false, either. What were the stats on the last round? IIRC 20k applications and how many got there? It’s not zero, but it’s a small chance.
RowanH 2y ago
> My wife and I have a profitable business here in SF that would be perfect as a startup Keep doing what you're doing. Being VC funded shouldn't be the holy grail - the holy grail is having a business you enjoy doing, that's making you the life you want. For some the life you want is pitching, raising, getting the kudos of the big numbers, onto the next raise etc. For some the life you want is the complete opposite and bootstrapping it. For some it's just all about the technical aspect, coding the next crazy thing. There's no wrong or right answer in how you get to the 'happy place'. You know in your heart of hearts what drives you, and what you'll be happy doing. Me : I'd been with the money men for a period of years and it's super stressful, board reporting, projections, market analysis etc. Now I've got my little B2B SaaS startup that's blended a life long passion with my software chops, and our clients love us, we get to work with the absolutely best people in our industry, we're making a difference in their lives, and they in turn pay us money. It's hard, rewarding, graft. At the end of the week when the money lands in stripe (for me..) there's nothing artificial, there's no projections, there's no-one to pay back, it's a 100% value exchange of 'heres my(our) hardwork, here's a product and you're giving me money for it'. Sure - could I potentially have gone the VC route (maybe!). Would it be different, hell yes. Would I (probably) earn more ultimately 5 years down the line (sure?). That 5 years would be very, very different...
- _akhe 2y ago
  I really appreciate this comment. Service offered / payment received is irreplaceably wholesome and satisfying :) especially when they come back as repeat customers or become regular clients. Repeat business and gradual growth gives us both an exciting feeling about the future that I never quite felt at a startup. I've found too often a venture-backed startup is really a lifestyle business in disguise for the founders, not really about serving customers, so it's hard to truly get excited about them anymore. Where running a business that solves a problem for paying customers feels more like changing the world: > we're making a difference in their lives, and they in turn pay us money We've felt this too in our community, it's the real meaning of "Make something people want" (and why we haven't had a day off in like 62 days or something lol). It's strange to refer to our business as a "startup", but it is one, moreso than most VC-funded ones and I bet we have more customers, higher revenues, and a better growth outlook than the average local seed-funded startup. For us, a loan or VC route would just let us expand nationally right now to other major cities, instead of focusing first on the Bay Area and expanding nationally over the next several years which feels inevitable. The amount a VC might pressure us to go in the wrong direction is another worry, and because it's just capital we'd need (not advice), they might just get in the way and throw off timing or team structure. Thanks for your comment! I needed the reminder of how rewarding it is compared to conventional employment as today has been exceptionally hectic!
tlogan 2y ago
That’s essentially how the whole world operates. Y Combinator isn’t an exception. Do you think a wealthy investor would prefer to fund an unknown individual, or someone whose father is a well-established law professor at Stanford? However, I do believe that YC tends to be somewhat more egalitarian and merit-based compared to others, although it’s not by a significant margin.
- _akhe 2y ago
  > That’s essentially how the whole world operates What if regarding slavery or horses as transportation people were like "that's essentially how the world operates", not that investing has anything to do with those, but that this excuse doesn't add a ton of insight if you think about it. There are a lot of ways the world has operated that are not fair or optimal. It would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to tradition - to use that as an argument against the way things could be, or according to OP the way things should be (are intended to be). Investing is a regulated activity that affects the economy and individuals, so I think it's at least worth exploring things like nepotism and exclusivity when it comes to the flow of capital. And it's obviously important to notice when the same relatively tiny group of people keep receiving the majority of "acceptance" (investment) while the vast majority outside that circle are totally ignored and/or marginalized.
  - tlogan 2y ago
    I completely agree that there’s a need for change in terms of inclusivity within tech entrepreneurship. However, I’m not convinced that YC is necessarily the starting point for this shift.
- Temporary_31337 2y ago
  You mean like Sam Bankman Fried whose both parents are in academia?
rachofsunshine 2y ago
There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of YC and of VCs in general (please do not take this as me going "there is nothing wrong in the VC world at all", because I absolutely do not believe that!), but I don't think excessive academic elitism is one of them. If anything, I think they're quite a bit better about avoiding that elitism than the average you'll find among organizations of comparable wealth and power (compare top law firms, leadership of more traditional companies, politicians, etc). This isn't my strongest opinion - I've never done any proper formal study of the question - but your impressions contradict my own experience living in that world. I used to be part of the leadership team for a YC company. Here's where the four YC founders I know off the top of my head went to school: SUNY, Oxford, Epitech, Tufts. Only Oxford among those is truly elite, though the other three are good schools. The one who went to Oxford (Harj Taggar) is a bit of an odd one out here, since they were a partner with YC itself first before founding the company that I know them from. Granted, three of these were founders many years ago, so perhaps this has changed, but one (the Tufts alum) got funding only about a year ago. I looked up a few other founders that are second- or third-degree connections and found the same: a handful of truly elite schools, a peak in A-tier-but-not-truly-elite schools, and a handful of no-name schools like my own alma mater. I expect that that's a reasonably representative distribution of where you find extremely smart people, and especially smart+motivated ones. As for this bit: >> And often those who did get in went to Stanford, Harvard, etc. and don't even have a product - sometimes they don't even know what they're going to build yet. YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it. >> but the numbers I've read online that most VCs want to see are not realistic - or if we were hitting those numbers I wouldn't even need a VC, we would be able to fund our own expansion. Growth demands, both realistic and unrealistic, are a much fairer criticism IMO. They're the primary reason I haven't sought VC funding personally (from YC or otherwise). Out of curiosity, I'd love to know more about what you're doing - I checked your HN profile but it didn't have a link or anything.
- april192024 2y ago
  >>> "YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it." If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.
ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
>how it becomes the next $100M household name Unfortunately this is too low for a VC/YC. The min valuation they are looking for is around $1B
- _akhe 2y ago
  I meant $100M in annual revenues :) Your point is taken though, I think a lot of VCs would scoff at our present-day numbers despite our growth and outlook. It's very much still a small business, yet by far the most impressive thing either of us have ever done and the hardest we've ever worked. Been at it since July of last year pretty much non-stop.
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    $100M from only July last year is far far impressive. We have been on this for 3 years and barely reaching $1M revenue (Although I wasted two years of my life applying for YC/VC/Pitching)
- dang 2y ago
  That's not so. At the last YC talk I attended, founders of $100M startups were cited as successes (anything else would be pretty weird, no?) That's incredibly successful, even though startup investing is a power-law game.
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    Here is the YC rejection letter for my startup > "... we felt this was unlikely to be a unicorn, even though it might have a solid chance of reaching 10-100M in valuation."
    - dang 2y ago
      If that's an accurate quote then I owe you an apology and I'm sorry!
      - 2y ago
darajava 2y ago
Sounds like you are making a lot of progress. What’s the business?
bruce511 2y ago
Congratulations on having a successful business. There's nothing wrong with a business that grows slowly, pays you a salary, and remains profitable. I've walked a similar path and, while I'll never be a multi-millionaire, I'm very comfortable and have more than I need. Small, stable, businesses that offer good secure jobs are the backbone of the economy. All that said, there are investors out there who are interested in folk like you and me. A track record of success, coupled with potential, and immediate returns is attractive. VC investors are ultimately investing in people, not businesses. The idea matters to some extent, but its more of a pitch in the person or team. This is partly why college is so predominately material. In the folk "starting out" there's little else to look at. (Always have your first date on a famous college campus, then you can forever drop "we met at harvard" into the conversation.) To be honest, VC investing isn't for me at this stage in my life, and it may or may not be a good fit for you. For many it's a great fit though, and in some ways their "first good job". So I think the advice in thr post is fine - if you -want- to go this route then go for it. The worst they can say is "no".
- sebastiennight 2y ago
  > (Always have your first date on a famous college campus, then you can forever drop "we met at harvard" into the conversation.) That was hilarious. Do people really do that?
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Probably not, but it sounds like an excellent strategy :)
- _akhe 2y ago
  Very good points, especially about timing / stage of life. > track record of success This is another factor - I didn't work at Facebook or Google and am not a member of the Bank of Mom & Dad, so if I got into investing I'd want to have enough extra time and money built up that I could participate in (or lead) the round and get a number of others involved, rather than being a candidate/applicant asking for funds and help - I'd want to be active in it. Great points, thanks for sharing!
desireco42 2y ago
This... what you just said. I am creating a business with my kids, so it is both educational for them, develop creator habits and that we create future together. I don't think we would be taken seriously by YC even though this would be perfect educational setting for them. BTW, kids are 17 and 15 and 11, not sure if I would fully include all of them.
tdfirth 2y ago
This was not my experience. I have no degree, I'm not American, and I applied back in October 2021 about 3 hours before the dead line and filmed my application video from a coffee shop. I didn't have a good network. I didn't have a product yet. I was accepted first time. As you say, a lot of YC founders don't have a real business yet, but they're not there because they're well connected. They're there because YC thinks they fit the profile of someone who really wants to build a big business and might pull it off. They're wrong most of the time but it's a numbers game.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  >> They're wrong most of the time but it's a numbers game. I'm not sure you meant to communicate this VERY important point, this is a huge reason NOT to do YC.
  - kang 2y ago
    This is not a reason not to do Yc, but to not take the if rejection seriously
  - algorias 2y ago
    or still do it, but know that YC's incentives and yours are pointing in different directions. Sometimes taking their advice is good for both of you, sometimes it is only good for them.
  - tdfirth 2y ago
    You're right that I didn't mean to communicate that, but it's a good point. I agree with you entirely that this is the big downside of YC and frankly all VC backed entrepreneurship. It is not the path of highest expected return for a founder. If you want a high expected return then a FAANG job or a bootstrapped SaaS product you can build yourself are good options. Some days that's what I wish I was doing to be honest. I think a lot of VC backed founders aren't just in it because they want to get rich though. Sure, we all want that, but we're also all predisposed to irrationally believe that we're the exception. That trait (for better or worse) comes with implications, and many founders I speak to are simply compelled to try because it's hard, and it's theirs, and they're impatient. I also very much agree with the sibling though. Getting rejected does not carry that much signal, because YC are wrong more than they're right. So just keep trying.
itsoktocry 2y ago
This inclination to "raise funds" is so foreign to me. VCs may tell you all the magic they can do for you, but at the end of the day you're trading ownership in your company for money (that you can't get elsewhere). You are running a profitable business, why play that game?
- rfrey 2y ago
  To go faster. You trade part of your company (and your freedom) for time. Maybe as a profitable startup in one part of the US, for example, you could use reinvested earnings to spread into the rest of the US in 5 years, then Europe in another 5 years. Perhaps with VC funding you could do the same in 3 years rather than 10. Not my first choice, but neither is it irrational.
- _akhe 2y ago
  My partner wants nothing to do with a VC or even a loan - basically because what you're saying here. The other side to it, as rfrey said, is it would enable a hyper growth mode and let us make moves earlier. But stable growth mode is working fine, and overall there's not a huge reason to take out a loan or raise money, it doesn't feel like we're racing against a clock on some trend or any other reason to rush things.
  - Eridrus 2y ago
    It's important to be aligned with your partners before you start because people rarely change what they want. Many people are happy running a small business without much pressure.
d4704 2y ago
Congrats! These are great stories to hear. Our team has build a business without venture capital in a space where it’s commonly sought after. Instead we did find a strategic partner in the industry who invested earlier on but then later we established a venture banking relationship and credit facility. I had almost no idea the options that existed so wanted to post some ideas here for anyone reading. Venture Capital is one source of funding. So is Growth Equity or even private equity —- but different from “venture”. It sounds like you’re past the “venture” stage anyway. We’re paying about ~9% interest on a multi-million credit facility now from a bank (several other banks will do this type of lending - not just SVB I also learned along the way recently). There is also minimal warrant coverage provided of 1-1.5% equity which we are happy with. Some names of banks who are lending - just a few names but wanted to share some ideas as alternatives to venture capital, especially if you have revenue: * Texas Capital Bank * Cambridge Trust * East West Bank * Bridge Bank
- _akhe 2y ago
  Thanks, and very cool, thanks for breaking it down! I appreciate you sharing numbers. A bank seems like a much better option if you just need the capital but you don't want to give up too much (or any) equity. That's likely the route we'd go if we ever wanted to tap into funding. Both private equity and venture funding seem more like you have to give up the company and go work for the investor. Investors bring some value sure, network and what-not, but I wonder how valuable their "advice" and network really is.
smabie 2y ago
Sounds like cope. The downside of applying is like.. close to zero? It's obviously +EV

by _akhe 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

> YC basically being a post-Ivy League thing I have a lot of friends of mine who are decade+ YoE first time founders who have done very very well in YC. Lots of Enterprise SaaS companies have went thru YC and done very well - you just don't hear about them as much because Direct Enterprise Sales doesn't require as much marketing. There are similar B2C successes by older founders and non-Ivy/Ivy Tier founders. > we're profitable, and can even articulate a realistic vision about how it becomes the next $100M household name You could easily pitch a Seed or Pre-Seed round depending on the numbers and location right now. I guarantee you that you are a 2nd or 3rd degree connect with plenty of VCs. Leverage that network you have and doors will open The YC label does help to open doors if you don't know or don't have the network to do it. (Note: this advice is US centric)

tempsy 2y ago
How many years do you have to go back to find 1 company that is on par with a dropbox or airbnb i feel like if you went back 5 years it would be hard to even find more than 1-2 companies that has achieved a moderate level of mainstream success in the same way
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Consumer != mainstream
- alephnerd 2y ago
  It takes 10-15 years to successfully IPO an Enterprise/Infra/Cybersecurity SaaS (eg. ZS started in the mid-2000s, work on Rubrik started in the 2013 time period). One notable mid-late state Enterprise firm I've been following is Vanta. Others have been very successful acquihires (eg. Squeen becoming a core part of the Security BU at Datadog). Salt Security is a good product as well, but will most likely be acquihired. Usually, most enterprise companies choose to be acquired because even though the pot of gold at IPO is amazing, it is annoying to work on the same product for 10-15 years (though occasionally you do have startups just being stupid at strategy - looking at you Lacework smh, coulda acquihired Wiz or Orca 4-5 years ago).

dang 2y ago

All I can tell you is it's not true and that's why I posted this! (and if it's true that everything you hear about YC is telling you otherwise, then YC has a serious messaging problem)

alephnerd 2y ago
> YC has a serious messaging problem It does. I've met some founders who went with Tribe8 (edit: Team8) or Sequoia Surge due to YC messaging issues and the (imo incorrect) perception that it's B2C or SMB B2B SaaS oriented. The Open-Core RFS will probably help though, but maybe highlighting additional successes beyond B2C or Coinbase types would help.
_akhe 2y ago
One of the reasons I like this site is that it feels slightly academic in a way that a competing site like Reddit does not. And being a somewhat exclusive post-academic institution is not a bad image or message IMO. Maybe there are more pros than cons in terms of curation (of content, of founders). Really didn't see it as a "everyone should apply!" kinda place, thought the messaging was intentionally "here's the latest out of Stanford" which I'm fine with.
- dang 2y ago
  You're right about HN - pg always used to say he wanted it to look 'bookish'. But not for academic reasons. He's just a bibliophile and a massive reader. When it comes to YC, however, I'm way closer to the "everyone should apply" end of the spectrum. Or rather: everyone who thinks they might like to start a high-growth startup. One of YC's biggest impacts has been in growing the number of startups that get created in the first place. It's not so much about picking founders out of a limited pool, it's about the much larger set of potential founders who can maybe get bumped out of the "I could never do that track" into the adjacent "maybe give it a try track"...which can lead to life-changing places. pg's essays have been one of the biggest such bumping devices. I would like HN to be that too. (While remaining interesting in all the other ways it can be.)
  - 2y ago

999900000999 2y ago

I had ambitions of cranking out an MVP and pitching it to VCs in my late 20s. After a year of solid rejection ( including YC not even responding), I gave up. You end up spending alot of time trying to pitch your work. I've had a few idea guys expect me to build MVPs for free with an offer of like 1% or something silly like that. Never any pay, poorly thought out concepts. I've accepted I'm never going to be rich, it's easier this way.

dang 2y ago
> YC not even responding The only way that would happen is a bug. YC always responds to applicants. Rejections usually aren't personalized because that can't scale - but not hearing back at all should never happen. If you want me to look into what might have happened there, I'd be willing to try if you email hn@ycombinator.com.
- 999900000999 2y ago
  Correction, I got a response, but no specific feedback. I double checked my emails. Anyway, I'm realistic in knowing my ideas aren't going to garner investment. I would love if you had a YC Junior for just getting help on ideas vs capital.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    No investor is going to give you specific feedback. Your best bet is to go to onto Reddit, Discord etc, find the startup communities and ask for advice there. There are a lot of people who want to support other founders. Or even better go on Linkedin, find some prospective customers and ask them for advice. I've had about 10% of people reply back some with page long answers. If you are willing to spend money there are plenty of services like Kintell, Intro.co which will allow you to book an hour with investors or successful founders. But there are plenty of free options that I would start with first.
    - anamax 2y ago
      > No investor is going to give you specific feedback. That depends on what you mean by "specific." Several Sand Hill Angels members, who are investors, provide feedback almost every month. (It's in the context of a pitch, but...) See https://www.sandhillangels.com/raw https://www.sandhillangels.com/raw ("pitch practice" is somewhat misleading.) [edited to add some detail] The typical angel-group pitch has three parts, the pitch, the Q&A, and then the "with the entrepreneur out of the room" discussion. This event lets participants listen to that discussion, as well as those three parts for the other folks pitching the same night. Then there's an "ask investors anything" session at the end.

vlod 2y ago

When the startup I co-founders applied to Techstars, we had to fill in the lean canvas diagram and it makes you think and write down a whole bunch of stuff that we were lacking. channels in, user-acquisition strategies etc. That process was super worth it. Ultimately we got rejected, but going forward I'll use that (well I try) to do that when joining/founding any startups. Worst case scenario is they say no, best case scenario... :-)

dang 2y ago
I hope you applied to YC as well!

Rapzid 2y ago

The LinkedIn page for a lot of these companies showing you "Where they studied" can be a bit intimidating. Chockablock with Stanford and Ivy League. I was filling out the Co-Founder matching service application and it has a required text area for education. The placeholder text examples? Standford MS in Comp Sci, NYU BS in Physics. As a college dropout with "some college" but a 14+ year career in systems/software engineering roles, that was quite discouraging.

dang 2y ago
I'm with you and wish that we were more careful with this sort of signaling risk. However, there are tons of college dropouts and uncredentialed software people who make it in to YC. What I'm basically trying to tell everyone, and hoping to convince a few, is: don't listen to any of this, just do it.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  I'm also with you! Just wanted to share my experience in case it helps as a data point. Gates, Jobs, and Zuck all famously dropped out of college of course. It's an interesting and tricky social dynamic matching within and between these somewhat distinct groups.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    Didn't they ask drop out from Harvard or something? It's a bit disingenuous to say that.
    - tempusalaria 2y ago
      Steve Jobs went to an obscure private school called Reed which seems to be something he became obsessed with due to LSD. Zuck and Gates both dropped out of Harvard after founding their companies.
      - alephnerd 2y ago

loceng 2y ago

Also understand the VC industry is inherent with learning from the ideas submitted to them as part of curating deal flow; and it's common for them to justify it with a mantra that ideas are supposedly not worth anything, and it's all about execution. When and who to share ideas with - and any market traction you may have as proof points there's an opportunity - is possibly the most important part of executing, and where you may be shooting yourself in the foot if sharing that with people in the business of funding ideas.

_akhe 2y ago
> VC industry Well said, and you reminded me to be more careful about what I share haha
andrewstuart 2y ago
>> ideas are supposedly not worth anything If ideas are worth nothing then a great team executing well should be able to create a billion dollar company selling dog droppings. Anyone who says ideas are worth nothing is flat out wrong.
- dang 2y ago
  I think the claim is rather that idea is not the high-order bit in an early-stage startup funding decision; founders are. There's no success without eventually finding a good idea, especially since 'successful in the end' is practically the definition of 'good idea', or close enough to be inseparable. So it's not so much "ideas don't matter" as "starting ideas don't matter", as long as you're the type of founder who can excecute on an idea, change it as needed, and drop it when necessary.
  - andrewstuart 2y ago
    A great idea is incredibly valuable. In fact the idea is the key to great success. However, it is true that without great execution, timing and luck, a great idea will go nowhere. Trouble is there are many people who have heard "ideas are worth nothing" and failed to understand that the full sentence is "ideas are worth nothing without execution" - that is certainly true, but it is a totally different statement to "ideas are worth nothing".

jacobwg 2y ago

I mean, I didn't even graduate college :P > So we're just doing it on our own. IMO if you can become a $100M household name without VC, that's absolutely the way to do it. Even if you do take the VC path, YC for me was a massive boost in network, knowledge, and resources that I didn't have before, but it's also not the only way to acquire those things. You can even find that YC knowledge online, e.g. https://www.startupschool.org/ https://www.startupschool.org/. That said, if anyone's even considering applying to YC, I'd recommend it, at a minimum it's a forcing function to think more deeply about your idea or business when assembling the application.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
> I mean, I didn't even graduate college :P Yes, but did you go to one of those colleges where dropping out is even better than graduating? Because most of us didn't even get the chance to drop out of one of those.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I'm a YC founder and I dropped out of not-one-of-those colleges (RPI). My cofounder dropped out of high school. Why not just give it a shot? Find the powerful parts of your story (I'm sure they exist) and share them! We applied, as GP advocates for, mostly to sharpen our thinking. Just the application process would've been worth the time, even if we had gotten declined immediately. The interview 10x'd that value, then the YC batch itself was another multiple on top of that.
  - _delirium 2y ago
    I would definitely count RPI as one of "those" colleges! I guess everyone has a different list, but for me, RPI is in the same category as Rose-Hulman, Olin, Harvey Mudd, etc. Perhaps not Ivy League level in the sense of being a household name, but still known among people in the field.
    - tobinfricke 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago

> Seems like there's basically a 0% chance a random person would get into YC This is simply not true. There are countless examples of people from outside the US or who went to non-Ivy league schools. Does it move the needle ? Probably. But it's easy to counteract it by having better answers to the other questions e.g. traction, team.

mlhpdx 2y ago
It’s not false, either. What were the stats on the last round? IIRC 20k applications and how many got there? It’s not zero, but it’s a small chance.

RowanH 2y ago

> My wife and I have a profitable business here in SF that would be perfect as a startup Keep doing what you're doing. Being VC funded shouldn't be the holy grail - the holy grail is having a business you enjoy doing, that's making you the life you want. For some the life you want is pitching, raising, getting the kudos of the big numbers, onto the next raise etc. For some the life you want is the complete opposite and bootstrapping it. For some it's just all about the technical aspect, coding the next crazy thing. There's no wrong or right answer in how you get to the 'happy place'. You know in your heart of hearts what drives you, and what you'll be happy doing. Me : I'd been with the money men for a period of years and it's super stressful, board reporting, projections, market analysis etc. Now I've got my little B2B SaaS startup that's blended a life long passion with my software chops, and our clients love us, we get to work with the absolutely best people in our industry, we're making a difference in their lives, and they in turn pay us money. It's hard, rewarding, graft. At the end of the week when the money lands in stripe (for me..) there's nothing artificial, there's no projections, there's no-one to pay back, it's a 100% value exchange of 'heres my(our) hardwork, here's a product and you're giving me money for it'. Sure - could I potentially have gone the VC route (maybe!). Would it be different, hell yes. Would I (probably) earn more ultimately 5 years down the line (sure?). That 5 years would be very, very different...

_akhe 2y ago
I really appreciate this comment. Service offered / payment received is irreplaceably wholesome and satisfying :) especially when they come back as repeat customers or become regular clients. Repeat business and gradual growth gives us both an exciting feeling about the future that I never quite felt at a startup. I've found too often a venture-backed startup is really a lifestyle business in disguise for the founders, not really about serving customers, so it's hard to truly get excited about them anymore. Where running a business that solves a problem for paying customers feels more like changing the world: > we're making a difference in their lives, and they in turn pay us money We've felt this too in our community, it's the real meaning of "Make something people want" (and why we haven't had a day off in like 62 days or something lol). It's strange to refer to our business as a "startup", but it is one, moreso than most VC-funded ones and I bet we have more customers, higher revenues, and a better growth outlook than the average local seed-funded startup. For us, a loan or VC route would just let us expand nationally right now to other major cities, instead of focusing first on the Bay Area and expanding nationally over the next several years which feels inevitable. The amount a VC might pressure us to go in the wrong direction is another worry, and because it's just capital we'd need (not advice), they might just get in the way and throw off timing or team structure. Thanks for your comment! I needed the reminder of how rewarding it is compared to conventional employment as today has been exceptionally hectic!

tlogan 2y ago

That’s essentially how the whole world operates. Y Combinator isn’t an exception. Do you think a wealthy investor would prefer to fund an unknown individual, or someone whose father is a well-established law professor at Stanford? However, I do believe that YC tends to be somewhat more egalitarian and merit-based compared to others, although it’s not by a significant margin.

_akhe 2y ago
> That’s essentially how the whole world operates What if regarding slavery or horses as transportation people were like "that's essentially how the world operates", not that investing has anything to do with those, but that this excuse doesn't add a ton of insight if you think about it. There are a lot of ways the world has operated that are not fair or optimal. It would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to tradition - to use that as an argument against the way things could be, or according to OP the way things should be (are intended to be). Investing is a regulated activity that affects the economy and individuals, so I think it's at least worth exploring things like nepotism and exclusivity when it comes to the flow of capital. And it's obviously important to notice when the same relatively tiny group of people keep receiving the majority of "acceptance" (investment) while the vast majority outside that circle are totally ignored and/or marginalized.
- tlogan 2y ago
  I completely agree that there’s a need for change in terms of inclusivity within tech entrepreneurship. However, I’m not convinced that YC is necessarily the starting point for this shift.
Temporary_31337 2y ago
You mean like Sam Bankman Fried whose both parents are in academia?

rachofsunshine 2y ago

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of YC and of VCs in general (please do not take this as me going "there is nothing wrong in the VC world at all", because I absolutely do not believe that!), but I don't think excessive academic elitism is one of them. If anything, I think they're quite a bit better about avoiding that elitism than the average you'll find among organizations of comparable wealth and power (compare top law firms, leadership of more traditional companies, politicians, etc). This isn't my strongest opinion - I've never done any proper formal study of the question - but your impressions contradict my own experience living in that world. I used to be part of the leadership team for a YC company. Here's where the four YC founders I know off the top of my head went to school: SUNY, Oxford, Epitech, Tufts. Only Oxford among those is truly elite, though the other three are good schools. The one who went to Oxford (Harj Taggar) is a bit of an odd one out here, since they were a partner with YC itself first before founding the company that I know them from. Granted, three of these were founders many years ago, so perhaps this has changed, but one (the Tufts alum) got funding only about a year ago. I looked up a few other founders that are second- or third-degree connections and found the same: a handful of truly elite schools, a peak in A-tier-but-not-truly-elite schools, and a handful of no-name schools like my own alma mater. I expect that that's a reasonably representative distribution of where you find extremely smart people, and especially smart+motivated ones. As for this bit: >> And often those who did get in went to Stanford, Harvard, etc. and don't even have a product - sometimes they don't even know what they're going to build yet. YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it. >> but the numbers I've read online that most VCs want to see are not realistic - or if we were hitting those numbers I wouldn't even need a VC, we would be able to fund our own expansion. Growth demands, both realistic and unrealistic, are a much fairer criticism IMO. They're the primary reason I haven't sought VC funding personally (from YC or otherwise). Out of curiosity, I'd love to know more about what you're doing - I checked your HN profile but it didn't have a link or anything.

april192024 2y ago
>>> "YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it." If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.

ganeshkrishnan 2y ago

>how it becomes the next $100M household name Unfortunately this is too low for a VC/YC. The min valuation they are looking for is around $1B

_akhe 2y ago
I meant $100M in annual revenues :) Your point is taken though, I think a lot of VCs would scoff at our present-day numbers despite our growth and outlook. It's very much still a small business, yet by far the most impressive thing either of us have ever done and the hardest we've ever worked. Been at it since July of last year pretty much non-stop.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  $100M from only July last year is far far impressive. We have been on this for 3 years and barely reaching $1M revenue (Although I wasted two years of my life applying for YC/VC/Pitching)
dang 2y ago
That's not so. At the last YC talk I attended, founders of $100M startups were cited as successes (anything else would be pretty weird, no?) That's incredibly successful, even though startup investing is a power-law game.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  Here is the YC rejection letter for my startup > "... we felt this was unlikely to be a unicorn, even though it might have a solid chance of reaching 10-100M in valuation."
  - dang 2y ago
    If that's an accurate quote then I owe you an apology and I'm sorry!
    - 2y ago

darajava 2y ago

Sounds like you are making a lot of progress. What’s the business?

bruce511 2y ago

Congratulations on having a successful business. There's nothing wrong with a business that grows slowly, pays you a salary, and remains profitable. I've walked a similar path and, while I'll never be a multi-millionaire, I'm very comfortable and have more than I need. Small, stable, businesses that offer good secure jobs are the backbone of the economy. All that said, there are investors out there who are interested in folk like you and me. A track record of success, coupled with potential, and immediate returns is attractive. VC investors are ultimately investing in people, not businesses. The idea matters to some extent, but its more of a pitch in the person or team. This is partly why college is so predominately material. In the folk "starting out" there's little else to look at. (Always have your first date on a famous college campus, then you can forever drop "we met at harvard" into the conversation.) To be honest, VC investing isn't for me at this stage in my life, and it may or may not be a good fit for you. For many it's a great fit though, and in some ways their "first good job". So I think the advice in thr post is fine - if you -want- to go this route then go for it. The worst they can say is "no".

sebastiennight 2y ago
> (Always have your first date on a famous college campus, then you can forever drop "we met at harvard" into the conversation.) That was hilarious. Do people really do that?
- bruce511 2y ago
  Probably not, but it sounds like an excellent strategy :)
_akhe 2y ago
Very good points, especially about timing / stage of life. > track record of success This is another factor - I didn't work at Facebook or Google and am not a member of the Bank of Mom & Dad, so if I got into investing I'd want to have enough extra time and money built up that I could participate in (or lead) the round and get a number of others involved, rather than being a candidate/applicant asking for funds and help - I'd want to be active in it. Great points, thanks for sharing!

desireco42 2y ago

This... what you just said. I am creating a business with my kids, so it is both educational for them, develop creator habits and that we create future together. I don't think we would be taken seriously by YC even though this would be perfect educational setting for them. BTW, kids are 17 and 15 and 11, not sure if I would fully include all of them.

tdfirth 2y ago

This was not my experience. I have no degree, I'm not American, and I applied back in October 2021 about 3 hours before the dead line and filmed my application video from a coffee shop. I didn't have a good network. I didn't have a product yet. I was accepted first time. As you say, a lot of YC founders don't have a real business yet, but they're not there because they're well connected. They're there because YC thinks they fit the profile of someone who really wants to build a big business and might pull it off. They're wrong most of the time but it's a numbers game.

skeeter2020 2y ago
>> They're wrong most of the time but it's a numbers game. I'm not sure you meant to communicate this VERY important point, this is a huge reason NOT to do YC.
- kang 2y ago
  This is not a reason not to do Yc, but to not take the if rejection seriously
- algorias 2y ago
  or still do it, but know that YC's incentives and yours are pointing in different directions. Sometimes taking their advice is good for both of you, sometimes it is only good for them.
- tdfirth 2y ago
  You're right that I didn't mean to communicate that, but it's a good point. I agree with you entirely that this is the big downside of YC and frankly all VC backed entrepreneurship. It is not the path of highest expected return for a founder. If you want a high expected return then a FAANG job or a bootstrapped SaaS product you can build yourself are good options. Some days that's what I wish I was doing to be honest. I think a lot of VC backed founders aren't just in it because they want to get rich though. Sure, we all want that, but we're also all predisposed to irrationally believe that we're the exception. That trait (for better or worse) comes with implications, and many founders I speak to are simply compelled to try because it's hard, and it's theirs, and they're impatient. I also very much agree with the sibling though. Getting rejected does not carry that much signal, because YC are wrong more than they're right. So just keep trying.

itsoktocry 2y ago

This inclination to "raise funds" is so foreign to me. VCs may tell you all the magic they can do for you, but at the end of the day you're trading ownership in your company for money (that you can't get elsewhere). You are running a profitable business, why play that game?

rfrey 2y ago
To go faster. You trade part of your company (and your freedom) for time. Maybe as a profitable startup in one part of the US, for example, you could use reinvested earnings to spread into the rest of the US in 5 years, then Europe in another 5 years. Perhaps with VC funding you could do the same in 3 years rather than 10. Not my first choice, but neither is it irrational.
_akhe 2y ago
My partner wants nothing to do with a VC or even a loan - basically because what you're saying here. The other side to it, as rfrey said, is it would enable a hyper growth mode and let us make moves earlier. But stable growth mode is working fine, and overall there's not a huge reason to take out a loan or raise money, it doesn't feel like we're racing against a clock on some trend or any other reason to rush things.
- Eridrus 2y ago
  It's important to be aligned with your partners before you start because people rarely change what they want. Many people are happy running a small business without much pressure.

d4704 2y ago

Congrats! These are great stories to hear. Our team has build a business without venture capital in a space where it’s commonly sought after. Instead we did find a strategic partner in the industry who invested earlier on but then later we established a venture banking relationship and credit facility. I had almost no idea the options that existed so wanted to post some ideas here for anyone reading. Venture Capital is one source of funding. So is Growth Equity or even private equity —- but different from “venture”. It sounds like you’re past the “venture” stage anyway. We’re paying about ~9% interest on a multi-million credit facility now from a bank (several other banks will do this type of lending - not just SVB I also learned along the way recently). There is also minimal warrant coverage provided of 1-1.5% equity which we are happy with. Some names of banks who are lending - just a few names but wanted to share some ideas as alternatives to venture capital, especially if you have revenue: * Texas Capital Bank * Cambridge Trust * East West Bank * Bridge Bank

_akhe 2y ago
Thanks, and very cool, thanks for breaking it down! I appreciate you sharing numbers. A bank seems like a much better option if you just need the capital but you don't want to give up too much (or any) equity. That's likely the route we'd go if we ever wanted to tap into funding. Both private equity and venture funding seem more like you have to give up the company and go work for the investor. Investors bring some value sure, network and what-not, but I wonder how valuable their "advice" and network really is.

smabie 2y ago

Sounds like cope. The downside of applying is like.. close to zero? It's obviously +EV