3 ms·

Likely an attempt to break out of the mold. It's possible to adjust YC style incubators to work on harder problems that require more capitalization - but the mi

by lumost 2y ago

Likely an attempt to break out of the mold. It's possible to adjust YC style incubators to work on harder problems that require more capitalization - but the milestones look different. You wouldn't encourage a nuclear reactor startup to go straight for revenue and commercial deployment with a tiny reactor on 500k. But building a team, research roadmap, and fundable "milestones"? Sure - it's possible the right team could use 500k to get to an initial funding round from a power company, GE, or someone similar.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
keepamovin 2y ago
I guess this would converge with Peter Thiel’s criticism that we’ve had so much progress in the world of bits, but not in the world of atoms. I suppose what we really need—and don’t have—is an accelerator for companies like SpaceX. In a sense, by making entry to lower orbit affordable, you peel back a lot of the risks that startups would have had to mitigate themselves. In that way, it functions as a kind of accelerator, which is the point. But I think more generally, it’s true what he says: where’s our progress in the world of atoms? We probably need to start accelerators focused specifically on that, not just on “let’s pitch this to the limited partners, get those sweet, quick returns,” and create the next air quotes “unicorn” company. I think you need an institutional-scale endeavor committed to that, like what Y Combinator has, as has been said, “lower-hanging fruit” of progressing bit-based startups!
- lumost 2y ago
  I spent some time understanding early stage VC back in 2022/2023. My anecdotal experience is that there is a lot of hesitance by most funding sources to go after bigger problems. You tend to get a lot of advice along the way to focus on a tiny problem. Occasionally with advice pointing to a small success which reached 10k/month as a SaaS. Generally, I see limited value in such pitches outside of lifestyle businesses - tech is simply too expensive to build at those Tams. Likely I was to close to the YC ecosystem when I had my exploration - none of the people I talked to would have written a 5 million dollar seed check.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by lumost 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

keepamovin 2y ago

I guess this would converge with Peter Thiel’s criticism that we’ve had so much progress in the world of bits, but not in the world of atoms. I suppose what we really need—and don’t have—is an accelerator for companies like SpaceX. In a sense, by making entry to lower orbit affordable, you peel back a lot of the risks that startups would have had to mitigate themselves. In that way, it functions as a kind of accelerator, which is the point. But I think more generally, it’s true what he says: where’s our progress in the world of atoms? We probably need to start accelerators focused specifically on that, not just on “let’s pitch this to the limited partners, get those sweet, quick returns,” and create the next air quotes “unicorn” company. I think you need an institutional-scale endeavor committed to that, like what Y Combinator has, as has been said, “lower-hanging fruit” of progressing bit-based startups!

lumost 2y ago
I spent some time understanding early stage VC back in 2022/2023. My anecdotal experience is that there is a lot of hesitance by most funding sources to go after bigger problems. You tend to get a lot of advice along the way to focus on a tiny problem. Occasionally with advice pointing to a small success which reached 10k/month as a SaaS. Generally, I see limited value in such pitches outside of lifestyle businesses - tech is simply too expensive to build at those Tams. Likely I was to close to the YC ecosystem when I had my exploration - none of the people I talked to would have written a 5 million dollar seed check.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]