My main takeaway from this was how much B2B SaaS companies dominate their unicorn distribution.
On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
31–40 of 59 posts
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#32Personally, I want to know how much Y Combinator companies have lost in Market Cap in the latest route. Many are trading below their IPO prices and have lost a huge amount of value.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
Hate to be pedantic but our star won't collapse it's not large enough for that, it will simply puff out and die leaving behind a very hot core called a White Dwarf
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#33How come most "successful" Y Combinator startups lose hundreds of millions of dollars per year, every year. Well, they suffer no consequences, and get more money to lose, so that's success, I guess.
A "dumping" period where your business gains marketshare and undercuts competitors to drive them under is an essential part of establishing monopoly power.
Dumping doesn't work unless there is customer lock-in. Many companies believe they have moats and find their moats have evaporated 2 years later.
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#34Personally, I want to know how much Y Combinator companies have lost in Market Cap in the latest route. Many are trading below their IPO prices and have lost a huge amount of value.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
The oldest company in the world is only 1443 years old (Kongo Gumi of Japan.) Most companies don't last a single human lifetime. It's completely besides the point to bring up things that play out over billions of years in that context. It's just trolling.
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#35Personally, I want to know how much Y Combinator companies have lost in Market Cap in the latest route. Many are trading below their IPO prices and have lost a huge amount of value.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
There are other stars
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
The oldest company in the world is only 1443 years old (Kongo Gumi of Japan.) Most companies don't last a single human lifetime. It's completely besides the point to bring up things that play out over billions of years in that context. It's just trolling.
Pseudo-blasphemously, I immediately thought "Is the Catholic church older, and in some sense a company, selling salvation?".
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#37Personally, I want to know how much Y Combinator companies have lost in Market Cap in the latest route. Many are trading below their IPO prices and have lost a huge amount of value.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
There are a lot of good responses, but another is that these companies are all expected to pay dividends, do buybacks or liquidate some time between now and the end of the universe. Every stock contains that promise, or a chance of it, supplying the ultimate justification for a nonzero price.
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a long enough time scale everything is below value because our star collapses.
Hate to be pedantic but our star won't collapse it's not large enough for that, it will simply puff out and die leaving behind a very hot core called a White Dwarf
You're underestimating humanity's future potential to add more gas to our star!
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to be pedantic but our star won't collapse it's not large enough for that, it will simply puff out and die leaving behind a very hot core called a White Dwarf
You're underestimating humanity's future potential to add more gas to our star!
Not at these prices.
Re: On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
#40> data-driven approach to our investments This is as absurd as saying "data-driven approach for finding out successful humans". I am kind of aggravated to see drivel like this from VC's. This is similar to algorithm trading on stock market and not funding deserving startups. This 'data-drive' garbage is how you end up with more grocery delivery, food delivery and pet walking startups.
> data-driven approach for finding out successful humans
not absurd at all, simply do IQ tests