4 ms·
Ah, fuck. Now I have to do a compare and contrast to the YC model docs. [EDIT] Here it is: http://www.sachinagarwal.com/quick-compare-and-contrast-of http://w
by sachinag 18y ago
Ah, fuck. Now I have to do a compare and contrast to the YC model docs.
[EDIT] Here it is: http://www.sachinagarwal.com/quick-compare-and-contrast-of http://www.sachinagarwal.com/quick-compare-and-contrast-of
[EDIT 2]: Here's the HN thread on my submission of my analysis of the YC documents back when: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=283469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=283469
- wastedbrains 18y agoWhat differences did you find?
- sachinag 18y agoDifferent feel, same instrument is all. Again, these aren't the documents that YC and TS use for their admitted companies; these are the docs for the round after that. These are actually more useful than the internal YC/TS documents, since you can use these documents for your discussions with angel investors outside of a YC/TS program. Again, I prefer the Techstars documents because they're more similar to standard Series A/B/C VC documents that I saw in my prior life as a lowly VC Analyst (still bitter I didn't negotiate the Associate title). But thanks to both Y Combinator and Techstars for releasing this stuff. They're both much, much better than the model NVCA documents for a potential angel round. You can't go wrong with either.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]