4 ms·
Thanks for the guidance, Paul. In thinking more about this, I came to the conclusion that this is probably a "taster" for what may become a closer relationship
by numair 18y ago
Thanks for the guidance, Paul. In thinking more about this, I came to the conclusion that this is probably a "taster" for what may become a closer relationship between YC and Sequoia. For example... Could you see a future where YC was part of Sequoia? It seems to be a good fit, as they are not currently targeting deals of the size you pursue, and you'd gain access to their resources and infrastructure.
- pg 18y agoI don't think of it that way and I'm sure they don't either. You can't have the same company doing both seed and series A investments.
- numair 18y agoA very good, and important, point. Several VCs have told me that they hate the pain the comes with dealing with many seed/angel investors out there; YCombinator has sort of established itself as the premier seed brand, and one that eliminates the old problems with seed/angel while adding a ton of new benefits. I suppose this could be a great symbiotic relationship, rather than a "potential future synergy" (in corporate speak). I'm still unsure why Sequoia was brought in if they really aren't getting any preferential treatment, as I think this would be off-putting to other VCs out there -- especially with such a small funding round, which I am sure could have been raised without creating any conflict of interest, be it real or perceived. You're a smart guy, so I am sure you had your reasons (access to their administrative infrastructure / easier pipeline for having YC startups acqu-hired by larger Sequoia-backed companies, perhaps?); you may not want to disclose them, however, and I respect that.