21–30 of 30 posts
We don't start from the applications though. We hear from news stories when startups are doing well, and then we go back and look at their application.
Why so much 'Ask PG' lately when he never replies, let alone read them?
what a stupid ask. why wouldn't a vc do this? Isn't this something that would be a big part of the iterative application process. I doubt the process has remained unchanged over the years. As new feature vectors of success are identified it would be a very inept investor who didn't consider how to integrate that back into their process. And PG is not an inept investor.
PG says that's not how it works. I guess you think the way YC works is stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
all you know is that something changed. Or you missed something that was already there - IMO more likely, considering how little you can learn about someone from the application, and that the founders at least had the potential to become what they are today.
I disagree, founders and products change, and can make the difference between lifestyle and $1B. Having had multiple rejections for years from different sources (then accepted with the same idea), I know this to be true. It's less about having a "great idea" and more about having the vision and ability to execute on it - that's what needs to be proven.
Whenever a startup we rejected seems to be succeeding, we go back and try to figure out why we rejected them. Occasionally we change the application process as a result. We don't start from the applications though. We hear from news stories when startups are doing well, and then we go back and look at their application.
Given the funnel of startup failure, there are probably more startups that didn't succeed because you passed than startups that succeed despite your passing.
Whenever a startup we rejected seems to be succeeding, we go back and try to figure out why we rejected them. Occasionally we change the application process as a result. We don't start from the applications though. We hear from news stories when startups are doing well, and then we go back and look at their application.
You're going to miss startups that might have succeeded if you had invested this way. You take a percentage of the companies you invest in because you make it more likely for them to succeed. Given the funnel of startup failure, there are probably more startups that didn't succeed because you passed than startups that succeed despite your passing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to miss startups that might have succeeded if you had invested this way. You take a percentage of the companies you invest in because you make it more likely for them to succeed. Given the funnel of startup failure, there are probably more startups that didn't succeed because you passed than startups that succeed despite your passing.
But what metric can track might-have-beens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what metric can track might-have-beens?
My point is that only looking at those that are successful is missing most of the data on people they should have funded. Assessing this is really hard, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they have all the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that only looking at those that are successful is missing most of the data on people they should have funded. Assessing this is really hard, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they have all the data.
Your insight is correct, but doesn't seem to be actionable in any way.