4 ms·

I find these kind of messages distasteful. When people are focused on building, they need feedback from the market. That rejection/feedback helps, but any other

I find these kind of messages distasteful. When people are focused on building, they need feedback from the market. That rejection/feedback helps, but any other kind of rejection - especially a VC or investor rejection - hurts. You could argue that founders should be used to rejection, still this is a needless rejection - without any specific feedback and from a group not their TG - not something people should spend their energy on. You apply, there is hope, then there is a rejection (given the acceptance rate highly likely), then you see the kind of companies that got in, and it becomes a distraction. That's human nature. You can correct something when a prospect says they do not want your product and understand the reasons, but how do you correct anything when a popular investor passes on and says "they could be wrong"? Yes, "keep building", which they were already doing with more enthusiasm and less distraction before the whole bandwagon of YC alums came along. You could argue that "filling the application gives clarity to a founder". Again genius marketing. That comes at an opportunity cost of talking to their leads, their prospects. At any rate, it takes you away from what you originally set out to do. You get more clarity from talking to your target market than filling an application. Another thing is "people got in applying on a whim". Yes, those are exceptions. But, any average founder understands that if the decision is likely to be determined by what they write in the application and their application video (and several factors outside of their control), they will optimize it to the max. The videos you see are always multiple takes. The applications are always pruned and reviewed and rewritten before submitting. When your goal is getting into YC, all this is worth doing. When the goal is building and growing a product, such advice, no matter how well intended, hurts more than helps the founders. It's okay if YC picks 200 startups out of 15000 instead of 20000.

practal 2y ago
I think applying to YC should be seen as fund raising activity. And pg's essays clearly state that fund raising is a distraction, so when you do that, just focus on it, and get it over with, so you can continue building. I must have applied at least 4 times now with Practal in various forms (at some point it was a different project called ProofPeer), got a rejection each time. The idea has been developed further each time, but in ways hard to communicate to a VC (or anyone, really). Reading this announcement I now have a choice: prepare another YC application in the next 2 days, or finish chapter 2 of my book about the logic used in Practal instead [1]. I think the choice is obvious, there is indeed such a thing as applying too early. I mean, I am not going to pivot to something else, there is no idea other than Practal I will ever be interested in. Working on anything else feels like a waste of my time. Hopefully I have something to show for when the winter batch comes around. [1] http://abstractionlogic.com http://abstractionlogic.com
- ankit219 2y ago
  One of PG's blogs talk about being fundable. For a founder, there is always a transition from being a builder to being an entrepreneur (business owner) where you must be able to access whether you are fundable and know what you need to do to get capital. I think it's the same thing with YC. There is an investor who says they like it as early as possible, but fundamentally you know if you are investible. It's sensible to only do fundraising activity when you have some confidence you are fundable.
  - practal 2y ago
    Exactly. Previous applications have taught me a lot about what VCs expectations are, and I know when I am fundable in their eyes. My ideas work and are a game changer. But until I can explain this clearly and have objective proof of that, I am not fundable. So no real sense to apply until then.
tptacek 2y ago
This is all a just-so story. Rejection is the air you breathe. One of the better things YC does is offer quick, no-nonsense rejections, which is a stark difference from the institutional VC market which will happily string you along, offering feedback and meetings for months with no intention of ever taking anything but an option on joining your round if a real buyer shows up. Meanwhile: if you're so busy talking to leads that the time to apply to YC is damaging, you know why you're not bothering to apply. Fair enough! But nobody's selling you a bill of goods. I totally get the whole jaded bootstrapper angle on this. You're on HN, and HN+YC can sometimes make entrepreneurship feel like college application season, rather than something that happens in the real world. And there are many good reasons (ie: circumstances to be in) not to apply! But notice how people generally aren't calmly laying out what those circumstances are, and laying out the alternate paths. They're people venting about how YC is overhyped. It's emotional and I don't think it's very helpful.
- ankit219 2y ago
  I am not coming from a jaded bootstrapper angle at all. My point is simple: if you are in fundraising mode and are fundable, apply to YC. And talk to as many investors as you can. If you are not, don't do any of those. Focus on building. YC would have another application in six months. YC is better than other investors, but it is still an investor. > the time to apply to YC is damaging It's not damaging but distracting. Focus is your biggest asset as a founder. And you need to minimize distractions. PG's essay on fundraising talks about the same. I do not have a viewpoint about other people venting about YC. I am not coming from that angle, and I have ignored those posts mostly simply because YC's content has helped me.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    We agree more than we disagree. I'll only say that while it's ultra-clear to me what's distracting about talking to VCs, it's not all that clear to me a YC app is all that distracting. It's a one-and-done thing, you get an answer pretty quickly, lots of people apply so go in expecting not to get it this round; it feels low cost to me. Going out to talk to actual VC firms too early can put you into a tailspin, for sure.
arbuge 2y ago
If rejection hurts you so much I think your life as an entrepreneur will be tough. The right mindset would I think be to show them that they were wrong if they reject you. Ultimately fundraising is selling. And in sales, your goal should, funnily enough, be to get as many rejections as possible. To eat "no" for breakfast, as it were. Easier said than done, I know.
- ankit219 2y ago
  Fundraising is about focus. If you are in a fundraising mode and applying to YC, great. Would learn a lot, and I think it makes sense to do that. When fundraising, many rejections are great. When not fundraising and a VC reaches out, it's distracting. How is the case different here? PG himself says so [1] When you are building and selling a product, shifting your focus to fundraising in the middle (and not committing to it) is stupidity and would leave you to neither be able to build/sell well or fundraise well. It's a mindset shift, and one of PG's essays talk about that too. Problem is not with rejection. Rejection from the customers is what motivates people. I am not motivated by "wanting to show others they are wrong", but by solving a problem, creating value, and impacting people. What you wrote is a weak justification for the time you spent on application - that could have spent on building product or a sales pitch. Again, my point is not rejection but distraction. It's about focus. When you are in the middle of building, it's unhelpful to just fill out an application for "what if". Don't do it. Most entrepreneurs know when they are fundable. [1]: https://paulgraham.com/fr.html https://paulgraham.com/fr.html

practal 2y ago

I think applying to YC should be seen as fund raising activity. And pg's essays clearly state that fund raising is a distraction, so when you do that, just focus on it, and get it over with, so you can continue building. I must have applied at least 4 times now with Practal in various forms (at some point it was a different project called ProofPeer), got a rejection each time. The idea has been developed further each time, but in ways hard to communicate to a VC (or anyone, really). Reading this announcement I now have a choice: prepare another YC application in the next 2 days, or finish chapter 2 of my book about the logic used in Practal instead [1]. I think the choice is obvious, there is indeed such a thing as applying too early. I mean, I am not going to pivot to something else, there is no idea other than Practal I will ever be interested in. Working on anything else feels like a waste of my time. Hopefully I have something to show for when the winter batch comes around. [1] http://abstractionlogic.com http://abstractionlogic.com

ankit219 2y ago
One of PG's blogs talk about being fundable. For a founder, there is always a transition from being a builder to being an entrepreneur (business owner) where you must be able to access whether you are fundable and know what you need to do to get capital. I think it's the same thing with YC. There is an investor who says they like it as early as possible, but fundamentally you know if you are investible. It's sensible to only do fundraising activity when you have some confidence you are fundable.
- practal 2y ago
  Exactly. Previous applications have taught me a lot about what VCs expectations are, and I know when I am fundable in their eyes. My ideas work and are a game changer. But until I can explain this clearly and have objective proof of that, I am not fundable. So no real sense to apply until then.

tptacek 2y ago

This is all a just-so story. Rejection is the air you breathe. One of the better things YC does is offer quick, no-nonsense rejections, which is a stark difference from the institutional VC market which will happily string you along, offering feedback and meetings for months with no intention of ever taking anything but an option on joining your round if a real buyer shows up. Meanwhile: if you're so busy talking to leads that the time to apply to YC is damaging, you know why you're not bothering to apply. Fair enough! But nobody's selling you a bill of goods. I totally get the whole jaded bootstrapper angle on this. You're on HN, and HN+YC can sometimes make entrepreneurship feel like college application season, rather than something that happens in the real world. And there are many good reasons (ie: circumstances to be in) not to apply! But notice how people generally aren't calmly laying out what those circumstances are, and laying out the alternate paths. They're people venting about how YC is overhyped. It's emotional and I don't think it's very helpful.

ankit219 2y ago
I am not coming from a jaded bootstrapper angle at all. My point is simple: if you are in fundraising mode and are fundable, apply to YC. And talk to as many investors as you can. If you are not, don't do any of those. Focus on building. YC would have another application in six months. YC is better than other investors, but it is still an investor. > the time to apply to YC is damaging It's not damaging but distracting. Focus is your biggest asset as a founder. And you need to minimize distractions. PG's essay on fundraising talks about the same. I do not have a viewpoint about other people venting about YC. I am not coming from that angle, and I have ignored those posts mostly simply because YC's content has helped me.
- tptacek 2y ago
  We agree more than we disagree. I'll only say that while it's ultra-clear to me what's distracting about talking to VCs, it's not all that clear to me a YC app is all that distracting. It's a one-and-done thing, you get an answer pretty quickly, lots of people apply so go in expecting not to get it this round; it feels low cost to me. Going out to talk to actual VC firms too early can put you into a tailspin, for sure.

arbuge 2y ago

If rejection hurts you so much I think your life as an entrepreneur will be tough. The right mindset would I think be to show them that they were wrong if they reject you. Ultimately fundraising is selling. And in sales, your goal should, funnily enough, be to get as many rejections as possible. To eat "no" for breakfast, as it were. Easier said than done, I know.

ankit219 2y ago
Fundraising is about focus. If you are in a fundraising mode and applying to YC, great. Would learn a lot, and I think it makes sense to do that. When fundraising, many rejections are great. When not fundraising and a VC reaches out, it's distracting. How is the case different here? PG himself says so [1] When you are building and selling a product, shifting your focus to fundraising in the middle (and not committing to it) is stupidity and would leave you to neither be able to build/sell well or fundraise well. It's a mindset shift, and one of PG's essays talk about that too. Problem is not with rejection. Rejection from the customers is what motivates people. I am not motivated by "wanting to show others they are wrong", but by solving a problem, creating value, and impacting people. What you wrote is a weak justification for the time you spent on application - that could have spent on building product or a sales pitch. Again, my point is not rejection but distraction. It's about focus. When you are in the middle of building, it's unhelpful to just fill out an application for "what if". Don't do it. Most entrepreneurs know when they are fundable. [1]: https://paulgraham.com/fr.html https://paulgraham.com/fr.html