11–20 of 24 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that also apply to angel/pre-seed/seed funded teams ?
No, not it's not usually a problem if a company has merely raised some money, unless they've sold so much of the company that we know it will deter post Demo Day investors.
We have a much higher threshold for startups that have already been through an "accelerator" program. Mainly because we expect them to have thereby been accelerated; if they're not doing well, we worry they might be unacceleratable. It's also a problem that such startups will be twice as diluted at Demo Day, which decreases their fundraising options. I can think of two startups we've funded that had been through thin…
If I were running an accelerator and you were applying to mine after having gone through another program, I wouldn't just look at if I will gain (financially or otherwise) from you but really question how you will gain from having you in in the accelerator, having already gone through a similar, perhaps even conflicting process.
For a company with a more specialized market like education or health, while the requirements above stay the same, there are important differences. So going through a generalized accelerator to build those fundamentals and then going through an accelerator specific to your industry makes sense because while building strong fundamentals in business may be the smae, scaling up, selling and operating successfully in these industries is rather different and perhaps even more different than the consumer space, like Imagine K12 for education and Rockhealth for health; or even the other way round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about either of them. There are so many of these things now. It seems like every few days I hear about another one I hadn't heard of. And I don't really know what goes on inside of any of them. Except Imagine K-12, which was started by friends of mine with my encouragement, and one of whose founders, Geoff Ralston, is also a partner at YC. IK12 is definitely good, and we recommend education startups…
Heh, I have an Airbnb guest staying with me tonight that's in Imagine K-12 right now. I should drop by and see what it's about, considering it's 10 minute walk from my place! I'm curious what makes them different from the others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not it's not usually a problem if a company has merely raised some money, unless they've sold so much of the company that we know it will deter post Demo Day investors.
How much of your company would you have to sell for it to become a deterrent to demo day investors?
We have a much higher threshold for startups that have already been through an "accelerator" program. Mainly because we expect them to have thereby been accelerated; if they're not doing well, we worry they might be unacceleratable. It's also a problem that such startups will be twice as diluted at Demo Day, which decreases their fundraising options. I can think of two startups we've funded that had been through thin…
AirBnB took quite a while before they started growing. If they had done YC in the first month of their existence, do you think that growth would've happened A LOT sooner? I think it would've helped considerably but I think some startups just need to "age" for a while. Ben / Pinterest had a similar long/flat growth line before they started to take off. On the other hand, maybe those "taking off" moments were a result…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about either of them. There are so many of these things now. It seems like every few days I hear about another one I hadn't heard of. And I don't really know what goes on inside of any of them. Except Imagine K-12, which was started by friends of mine with my encouragement, and one of whose founders, Geoff Ralston, is also a partner at YC. IK12 is definitely good, and we recommend education startups…
Heh, I have an Airbnb guest staying with me tonight that's in Imagine K-12 right now. I should drop by and see what it's about, considering it's 10 minute walk from my place! I'm curious what makes them different from the others?
We have a much higher threshold for startups that have already been through an "accelerator" program. Mainly because we expect them to have thereby been accelerated; if they're not doing well, we worry they might be unacceleratable. It's also a problem that such startups will be twice as diluted at Demo Day, which decreases their fundraising options. I can think of two startups we've funded that had been through thin…