4 ms·

Confusingly, this tweet is about why you should join YC. History is full of young men on boats, in the wilderness and in formation to have a small chance at glo

Confusingly, this tweet is about why you should join YC. History is full of young men on boats, in the wilderness and in formation to have a small chance at glory. All of those guys were giving up a lot more than a 7% stake, and eating worse than ramen, and living worse than a cramped apartment. The reason you shouldn't do YC is simpler. It commits you to the VC track. Whatever you build is eventually going to suck because of enshittification. YC = VC If the VC thing doesn't bother you then try for YC for sure. It is overwhelmingly the best way to do that unless you're a rich kid who can leverage his connections. And even if you are that rich kid it's still the best way.

dang 2y ago
> It commits you to the VC track. That's not true. YC always supports what founders want to do. If founders don't want to raise VC, YC supports them in that choice.
- kyleyeats 2y ago
  I didn't mean it as a top-down thing but as an aligned goals thing. If you do this you're basically paying a 7-10% tax on everything you do, forever, without the hyper-growth to justify/offset it. It's like selling out to Hollywood and then only doing bit roles. If you do YC, you should take VC. You would be stupid not to. I mean, YC is VC, right? It's a consistency thing. No-YC and no-VC makes sense. Yes-YC and yes-VC makes sense. Yes-YC and no-VC does not make sense.
  - robocat 2y ago
    Paying 7-10% tax is a fabulous expense for founders if that leads to company growth >10% (ignoring smallprint). Certainly that's a reasonably likely outcome. "Hyper growth" is irrelevant. Do the benefits exceed the costs? That's a harder thing to judge. Worthwhile reading https://paulgraham.com/articles.html https://paulgraham.com/articles.html which has many articles expounding the benefits (understandably biased and unfortunately mostly pro VC). There are unfortunately very few decent articles or good data on the costs. Here's one good article against the YC SAFE: https://siliconhillslawyer.com/2019/05/01/startups-shouldnt-use-yc-post-money-safe/ https://siliconhillslawyer.com/2019/05/01/startups-shouldnt-... Sometimes compromises are needed! Not many businesses can find $500k another easier way.

dang 2y ago

> It commits you to the VC track. That's not true. YC always supports what founders want to do. If founders don't want to raise VC, YC supports them in that choice.

kyleyeats 2y ago
I didn't mean it as a top-down thing but as an aligned goals thing. If you do this you're basically paying a 7-10% tax on everything you do, forever, without the hyper-growth to justify/offset it. It's like selling out to Hollywood and then only doing bit roles. If you do YC, you should take VC. You would be stupid not to. I mean, YC is VC, right? It's a consistency thing. No-YC and no-VC makes sense. Yes-YC and yes-VC makes sense. Yes-YC and no-VC does not make sense.
- robocat 2y ago
  Paying 7-10% tax is a fabulous expense for founders if that leads to company growth >10% (ignoring smallprint). Certainly that's a reasonably likely outcome. "Hyper growth" is irrelevant. Do the benefits exceed the costs? That's a harder thing to judge. Worthwhile reading https://paulgraham.com/articles.html https://paulgraham.com/articles.html which has many articles expounding the benefits (understandably biased and unfortunately mostly pro VC). There are unfortunately very few decent articles or good data on the costs. Here's one good article against the YC SAFE: https://siliconhillslawyer.com/2019/05/01/startups-shouldnt-use-yc-post-money-safe/ https://siliconhillslawyer.com/2019/05/01/startups-shouldnt-... Sometimes compromises are needed! Not many businesses can find $500k another easier way.