7 ms·

For those down voting me, please go ahead and list all of the YC Companies who have taken money from him. He's supposed to be soooo founder friendly. So why do

For those down voting me, please go ahead and list all of the YC Companies who have taken money from him. He's supposed to be soooo founder friendly. So why do the best early stage startups avoid him?

data_app 13y ago
YC is just a small sample of the startup world.
ankitoberoi 13y ago
Interview street is a YC company, backed by them. They seem like doing fine to me.
hnnnnng 13y ago
Unfortunately, lack of evidence that he has funded YC Companies is not evidence that hes a bad VC. I'm not saying he isn't, instead, if you could provide proof from various (more than 5) founders that have obtained funding from him and yet feel this way, it might make for a better argument.
- coleslawfail 13y ago
  I didn't say he's a bad VC. I'm sure his LPs love him. He's just not who he markets himself as. It's not about you and your company. It's about him. As for YC, they have what, 400 companies? For a guy who is supposedly (self-proclaimed) so founder friendly, and has $3B in funds, not one big YC company has taken money from him? Your proof is not how the Valley works, in my view. They know and so they steer clear. That's the glaring proof. Good companies stay away until it's growth equity. Heck, look at Square. They gave Khosla a board seat as part of a huge valuation. He certainly didnt get that company off the ground.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I know of a non-YC company which did take money from Khosla and had a lot of good things to say about them, actually, but I wouldn't generalize from a single data point.
  - keithrabois 13y ago
    False. KV led Square's Series A and is the largest institutional share holder in the company (by a large margin).
    - coleslawfail 13y ago
      Heh, seriously? I'm sure the valuation he gave Jack has nothing at all to do with it. Jack didnt need Vinod, big difference. Square would be Square without Vinod.
      - keithrabois 13y ago
        KV offered substantially less of a valuation than other firms to lead the Series A.
        coleslawfail 13y ago
        And control provisions? Jack was never going to see Bad Vinod. And he was never going to give up enough equity/control to let Vinod's ego run wild.
        keithrabois 13y ago
        KV asks for less control provisions than other comparable funds. Indeed, we rarely even require a Board seat. Most often, the founder persuades us to accept one.
        coleslawfail 13y ago
        Or in the case of "experiments" KV insists on two seats and takes the option pool from founders at the seed stage. I get why you are presenting the rosiest picture, but at least be honest that Bad Vinod exists and is pernicious for the firm and many early founders.
        keithrabois 13y ago
marcamillion 13y ago
For starters....maybe it is as a result of a difference in investment thesis? The things I have heard him talk about, I can't imagine a YC company doing that. Not saying that they won't, and going forward that may be the case, but I can't recall ever hearing many/any YC company making synthetic beef, or new types of seed, or other stuff that I hear Vinod talking about all the time. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there are no YC companies that do these things. It's just that based on what I know, if there are any, it is a small subset. From there, then it is about whether or not the company founders and Khosla Ventures work well together and see the big picture similarly. Not every company that is in an industry you invest in, will be suitable for you to invest in - for a variety of reasons. So, if we were to be generous, I would say 5% of all YC companies would make up the total "investable pool" for Khosla Ventures. That's only 20 companies. From there....there is no telling why they haven't invested - e.g. all 20 could conflict with existing portfolio companies, or maybe only 15 do and the other 5 are not as impressive as they would like or any other reasons that disqualify them from being investable and reaching a deal with Khosla. So all in all....if YC were producing 400 of the types of companies that fit Khosla's thesis...then I would agree with you. But that is clearly not the case....so I don't think that is a useful data point.
- coleslawfail 13y ago
  His investment thesis is high-growth startups. Funny enough, that's YC too. What you are leaving out is his thesis assumes overwhelming control. That thesis is not in a founder's best interests. It's far better to raise less. Nice dodge though turning hundreds of startups into tens based on no evidence. And in fact, when you look at his non-cleantech portfolio you can see that almost every YC startup would have a place there, especially the biggies and especially when they just need growth equity now. The problem is Vinod saw the insane terms he could get in cleantech, while pushing founders aside, and so he anchors to those terms for everyone, including other VCs. The proof is in his lack of big wins, not even from his Kleiner days.
  - marcamillion 13y ago
    Given the hostility and your new account - I am going to assume that you have an axe to grind.

data_app 13y ago

YC is just a small sample of the startup world.

ankitoberoi 13y ago

Interview street is a YC company, backed by them. They seem like doing fine to me.

hnnnnng 13y ago

Unfortunately, lack of evidence that he has funded YC Companies is not evidence that hes a bad VC. I'm not saying he isn't, instead, if you could provide proof from various (more than 5) founders that have obtained funding from him and yet feel this way, it might make for a better argument.

coleslawfail 13y ago
I didn't say he's a bad VC. I'm sure his LPs love him. He's just not who he markets himself as. It's not about you and your company. It's about him. As for YC, they have what, 400 companies? For a guy who is supposedly (self-proclaimed) so founder friendly, and has $3B in funds, not one big YC company has taken money from him? Your proof is not how the Valley works, in my view. They know and so they steer clear. That's the glaring proof. Good companies stay away until it's growth equity. Heck, look at Square. They gave Khosla a board seat as part of a huge valuation. He certainly didnt get that company off the ground.
- rdl 13y ago
  I know of a non-YC company which did take money from Khosla and had a lot of good things to say about them, actually, but I wouldn't generalize from a single data point.
- keithrabois 13y ago
  False. KV led Square's Series A and is the largest institutional share holder in the company (by a large margin).
  - coleslawfail 13y ago
    Heh, seriously? I'm sure the valuation he gave Jack has nothing at all to do with it. Jack didnt need Vinod, big difference. Square would be Square without Vinod.
    - keithrabois 13y ago
      KV offered substantially less of a valuation than other firms to lead the Series A.
      - coleslawfail 13y ago
        And control provisions? Jack was never going to see Bad Vinod. And he was never going to give up enough equity/control to let Vinod's ego run wild.
        keithrabois 13y ago
        KV asks for less control provisions than other comparable funds. Indeed, we rarely even require a Board seat. Most often, the founder persuades us to accept one.
        coleslawfail 13y ago
        Or in the case of "experiments" KV insists on two seats and takes the option pool from founders at the seed stage. I get why you are presenting the rosiest picture, but at least be honest that Bad Vinod exists and is pernicious for the firm and many early founders.
        keithrabois 13y ago

marcamillion 13y ago

For starters....maybe it is as a result of a difference in investment thesis? The things I have heard him talk about, I can't imagine a YC company doing that. Not saying that they won't, and going forward that may be the case, but I can't recall ever hearing many/any YC company making synthetic beef, or new types of seed, or other stuff that I hear Vinod talking about all the time. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there are no YC companies that do these things. It's just that based on what I know, if there are any, it is a small subset. From there, then it is about whether or not the company founders and Khosla Ventures work well together and see the big picture similarly. Not every company that is in an industry you invest in, will be suitable for you to invest in - for a variety of reasons. So, if we were to be generous, I would say 5% of all YC companies would make up the total "investable pool" for Khosla Ventures. That's only 20 companies. From there....there is no telling why they haven't invested - e.g. all 20 could conflict with existing portfolio companies, or maybe only 15 do and the other 5 are not as impressive as they would like or any other reasons that disqualify them from being investable and reaching a deal with Khosla. So all in all....if YC were producing 400 of the types of companies that fit Khosla's thesis...then I would agree with you. But that is clearly not the case....so I don't think that is a useful data point.

coleslawfail 13y ago
His investment thesis is high-growth startups. Funny enough, that's YC too. What you are leaving out is his thesis assumes overwhelming control. That thesis is not in a founder's best interests. It's far better to raise less. Nice dodge though turning hundreds of startups into tens based on no evidence. And in fact, when you look at his non-cleantech portfolio you can see that almost every YC startup would have a place there, especially the biggies and especially when they just need growth equity now. The problem is Vinod saw the insane terms he could get in cleantech, while pushing founders aside, and so he anchors to those terms for everyone, including other VCs. The proof is in his lack of big wins, not even from his Kleiner days.
- marcamillion 13y ago
  Given the hostility and your new account - I am going to assume that you have an axe to grind.