Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Deal

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 194 posts

Re: The New Deal

#51

Post by logicallee »

tptacek wrote: post #15
Beliavsky wrote: post #11

I have wondered if affluent parents can replicate at least the money part of Y Combinator. $120K is about the list price of two years of Harvard/MIT/Stanford . With a son who loves to program, I have wondered if sending him to a cheaper school and giving him the difference in installments after he graduates is better than paying for a "name" school. It depends on the quality of the cheaper school, of course. And I th…

They obviously can, the same way that they can offset the dollars by paying for their childrens' living expenses. But $120k is just not a lot of money. The real value of YC is the signal that getting accepted sends to other seed investors.

> But $120k is just not a lot of money. The real value of YC is the signal that getting accepted sends to other seed investors.

This idea (first quoted sentence) needs to die. It is toxic to the early-stage ecosystem. Any amount of money is a ton of money. Period. You can ignore the hustling that Jobs or Zuckerberg did for literally a couple of thousand dollars - read Zuckerberg's contracts at the time he was at Harvard making facebook. Look at the timing jobs "Stole" $5000 from Woz and founded Apple with it (making his friend a multimillionaire in the process). The reality is that no windfall bonus from Atari of less than $4300 - which is money that Jobs had 0, absolutely 0, access to, from any other source - equals no Apple. Look at the dates.

You can also ignore what companies actually spend the YCombinator seed money on when it was $14K-$20K, at a time that the YC badge easily added $200K+ to a YC company's average valuation - a badge that doesn't bring instant liquidity. How many YC companies would not exist if YC only added its badge to the valuation, and not actually given any money.[1]

What you can't ignore is that there are people who are working a day job while owning and building a company - working that day job because any amount of money, even part of a single full time earner's after-tax salary, is a ton of money.

Just try raising it.

[1] Imagine if the YC admission read: "Congratulations! This admission is easily worth $200K in extra valuation. With the YC badge, you should have no trouble raising money. We are therefore not making any cash investment, not even $12K, but rendering only services. We welcome you to the bay area on (date)."

Re: The New Deal

#52

Post by suyash »

arfliw wrote: post #47
suyash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you know that it's not a 1-1 relationship between YC startup and accelerator startup. There are major differences between Incubator like YC and other Accelerators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_accelerator

YC is not an incubator

Ok, in that case, I'm mistaken. YC is yet another startup accelerator (YNSC)

Re: The New Deal

#53

Post by mbesto »

Beliavsky wrote: post #11

I have wondered if affluent parents can replicate at least the money part of Y Combinator. $120K is about the list price of two years of Harvard/MIT/Stanford . With a son who loves to program, I have wondered if sending him to a cheaper school and giving him the difference in installments after he graduates is better than paying for a "name" school. It depends on the quality of the cheaper school, of course. And I th…

> And I think school prestige matters more for investment banking than tech

It has less to do with prestige and more to do with risk.

IMHO, there are only two routes to becoming part of today's tech elite. You either build something that gets traction or you join a team that has already done so. These are IMHO the two strongest signals today, especially given the increase of noise. Don't believe me? Just search around AngelList for 30 min. If your son gets a CS degree from Stanford or MIT, it will automatically put him in that basket of "join a team who has already done so", just as working for Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc does.

Re: The New Deal

#54

Post by Patrick_Devine »

The 17k for 7% is what always stopped me from considering the Y Combinator route. It's a huge chunk of your company for not very much money. If the new deal had been in place when we started, I think we would have been very tempted to join.

The real benefits of YC though are the focus it brings you, and being able to get access to the YC ecosystem. Oh, and being able to attend Demo Day, but with so many companies in the YC program, I think Demo Day isn't what it used to be (I think you get 90 seconds now?).

We would have loved to have had access to those resources, but since we had already invested far more into our company in terms of cash, it's hard to justify giving up that much equity for so little. Kudos to Sam for the new program.

Re: The New Deal

#57

Post by jonknee »

cperciva wrote: post #4

I can't help thinking that this seems a little bit unfair. While there's a nominal out for "exceptional cases", it seems to me that a company like Stripe deserves a much higher valuation than a company like Tarsnap... not to mention the difference between companies which are joining YC after they're already established and companies which are merely a twinkle in their founders' eyes. What exactly is the problem being…

YC is meant for very early stages (with an idea and not much else). Stripe wasn't worth much when it was just an idea--a better payment gateway--but is now worth a lot because they executed. YC wants to help teams better execute and starts things off with enough money to let the team live in the Bay area for a short time.

Re: The New Deal

#58

Post by mcherm »

sama wrote: post #16
cperciva wrote: post #4

I can't help thinking that this seems a little bit unfair. While there's a nominal out for "exceptional cases", it seems to me that a company like Stripe deserves a much higher valuation than a company like Tarsnap... not to mention the difference between companies which are joining YC after they're already established and companies which are merely a twinkle in their founders' eyes. What exactly is the problem being…

very few people do YC primarily for the money (though, as i said in the post, more money for less equity is definitely better than the opposite!), and whether a company is brand new or 6 months old, we think we can increase their valuation by more than 7%.

...or more specifically, if you CANNOT increase their valuation by more than 7% then they probably should be looking elsewhere, to someone who CAN increase their value substantially.

Re: The New Deal

#60

Post by tptacek »

logicallee wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously can, the same way that they can offset the dollars by paying for their childrens' living expenses. But $120k is just not a lot of money. The real value of YC is the signal that getting accepted sends to other seed investors.

> But $120k is just not a lot of money. The real value of YC is the signal that getting accepted sends to other seed investors. This idea (first quoted sentence) needs to die. It is toxic to the early-stage ecosystem. Any amount of money is a ton of money. Period. You can ignore the hustling that Jobs or Zuckerberg did for literally a couple of thousand dollars - read Zuckerberg's contracts at the time he was at Harv…

Sorry, I just don't agree. 120k barely makes expenses for 1 FTE. Not only that, but it's also an amount of money that a strong freelancer can generate on top of living expenses in a particularly well-utilized year.
Post reply on HN