4 ms·
Anyone else get the sense that this article is, intentionally or not, a huge ringing endorsement of the YC model? I.e. much more focus on providing super early
by pshin45 14y ago
Anyone else get the sense that this article is, intentionally or not, a huge ringing endorsement of the YC model?
I.e. much more focus on providing super early-stage startups with guidance, emotional support, and the world's best network while providing the bare minimum of capital up front (avg $17,000) to keep founders lean and mean.
My only gripe with YC is that despite how successful they've been and how many copycats they've inspired, there is still a huge drop-off in quality outside of YC, and yet pg and friends seem to have no plans whatsoever for any kind of domestic or international expansion, which is a shame.
- yesimahuman 14y agoI don't look at it that way. It seems YC is interested in pushing early seed stage companies to raise a big next round and become a "large, venture-backed company" (from our interview rejection earlier this spring). This "2013 startup" is something different: focus on customers and revenue instead of just raw users, and go from there. At least that's my interpretation of the concept.
- nchirls 14y agoI'd agree with this. YC is a wonderful program for both startups and entrepreneurs, PG is a godsend for these groups, especially in past years when seed funding was harder to come by. However, a lot of the hype now around YC often pushes entrepreneurs to raise way larger seed rounds than they need or know what to do with. This is of course not always the case, and I can think of several YC companies off the top of my head that did not go this route (even when there was investor demand for it), but on balance, YC seems to encourage founders to raise way more capital than these companies need in the early stages. Again, I think entrepreneurs are now waking up to some of the negative consequences that can result.