21–30 of 253 posts
> [DreamWorld] wasn't vetted. They apparently had nothing to show on demo day, and they were still allowed through "It's their money" and all that, but if true I do wonder how often this kind of 'line-skipping' happens. Maybe an elevator pitch and passion is enough for YC sometimes?
I've been following the DreamWorld saga on YouTube for a hot minute now, mainly because I find it so interesting how they got through the YC vetting process when I myself have applied twice (maybe 3 times) and I also know plenty of people -- brilliant, motivated, entrepreneurial folks -- that applied many (many) times as well and were rejected (YC is mega-competitive after all). IMO, it's a bit insulting to the strug…
Which is why I suspect the title will be changed, even though it is relevant to the discussion.
I've been following the DreamWorld saga on YouTube for a hot minute now, mainly because I find it so interesting how they got through the YC vetting process when I myself have applied twice (maybe 3 times) and I also know plenty of people -- brilliant, motivated, entrepreneurial folks -- that applied many (many) times as well and were rejected (YC is mega-competitive after all). IMO, it's a bit insulting to the strug…
Even if there's a vetting accuracy of 99.9% (for the sake of argument), there's still a chance that some lemon will fall through the cracks. So after 1000 seeds, there should be 1 lemon.
Now does that make the program any less prestigious? No, but these things happen.
You're not meant to editorialize titles like this on HN. People who submit stories have no more claim to their viewpoint than any commenter does. The title here should be: "This MMO that promised an 'infinite open world' has become a giant fiasco"
If the reason for the rule is to avoid the submitter pushing through their viewpoint, this particular case shouldn’t be a problem. The “Y Combinator” part is a reason why it’s relevant to this site, and it’s not a viewpoint.
Would be editorialized enough to provide context, but not as much of a click-bait title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theranos believed in what they were originally taking investors over. I don't see why this is not a similar case of fraud if investors have not been informed about current expectations of their original promise.
The difference with Theranos is they were promising people tangible medical results. Clearly, if a metaverse startup convinces a bunch of VCs to back them and the venture fails, that risk was known from the beginning.
The problem is when said venture later lies about progress, or otherwise obfuscates, especially to get more money. That's certainly what Theranos did, and I think what GP was suggesting happened here.
Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26898266 If a company promises more than they can deliver, is it a scam? What if they believe that they actually can deliver it?
I do think calling this a "scam" is difficult to defend from an intent perspective, but it does not appear like it has any realistic chance of succeeding. At some point projects cross a line from being optimistic to being negligent and deceptive. YC should know better and I think using hyperbolic rhetoric is a legitimate counter to a company that seems to be sleepwalking into failure with other peoples' money.
Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26898266 If a company promises more than they can deliver, is it a scam? What if they believe that they actually can deliver it?
I would hope that one of the services provided by YC is a reality check to convince startups like this to stop overpromising.
If there is a scam, where are the victims?
All I can see here is only a lot of speculative and targeted hate and smear that makes me wonder why on earth it is on Hacker News.
You're not meant to editorialize titles like this on HN. People who submit stories have no more claim to their viewpoint than any commenter does. The title here should be: "This MMO that promised an 'infinite open world' has become a giant fiasco"