51–60 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They'll be so flush with money that the only reasonable way to use it will be to do their own series 'A'. The other way to use that money would be to have gigantic batches. Remember, pg and sama have said that they're trying to build something akin to a university with Y Combinator. Using their money to do series A's instead (which is what other accelerators are already doing) would just be so conventional, and not…
This. I'd think batches with 200 (500? 1000? startups) will come before Series A's. If only on principle.
YC is as good as they are because they really work hard on processing those applications and even though it is software assisted it is still to a very large extent handwork.
How does Genius get away with copying an entire (paywalled) article with a single link back? Perhaps the commentary is transformational enough to make it arguable legal, but it seems entirely wrong to me.
In-place annotations are part of ongoing work at W3C (http://www.w3.org/2014/04/annotation/), and will allow bring-your-own-annotation servers. Genius.com wants to "annotate the web", making the site a possible future HN substitute. Does Genius.com plan to license guest posts, until such time as content providers enable 3rd-party annotations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. I'd think batches with 200 (500? 1000? startups) will come before Series A's. If only on principle.
With batches that large the positive effects of the 'classes' model will vanish, it will also require a much more efficient way of processing the applications and that will lead to (percentage wise) more rejections of good applicants. YC is as good as they are because they really work hard on processing those applications and even though it is software assisted it is still to a very large extent handwork.
YC doesn't have anything like a monopoly on great startups. If investors can't find their own great startups they don't deserve to be successful as investors. What all SV investors should be worried about is crowdfunding. Most of them don't have anything to offer beyond money and that doesn't count for much if users pay millions in advance. Oculus took VC money but you can bet it was on incredibly advantageous terms…
By the time a16z invested Oculus had John Carmack as CTO and they already demoed to huge interest at E3. It was already a much later stage company by that point.
This is what happens when (as an industry) you don't treat people well, when you feel have the power to do as you please. Let me explain: pre-Ycombinator a lot of VCs would routinely either abuse or just simply ignore a lot of entrepreneurs. Someone can correct me but YC was a response to that. One reason everyone flocks to YC is because everyone knows that YC is fair and trustworthy. That's not the case anywhere els…
They also have a relatively transparent application process. I think that means a more level playing field based on merits rather than on who you know.
Back in the early days pg mentioned around 10-15% of the accepted class were referred but I wouldn't be surprised if that figure had crept up over time.
This “signaling issue” is a huge problem, by the way—accelerators that do the Series As for their top 3 companies deeply wound all the rest. - Sam Altman How is this different from a VC firm like Andreessen doing Series As for their top 3 seed companies? Isn't signaling part-and-parcel of the startup economy? Why should YC be worried about signaling when a firm like Andreessen isn't?
[There are other reasons why VCs chose not to do follow-on, such a conflicts-of-interest, disagreements on valuation, etc. but any other VC you speak to will ask you why your seed investor isn't following-on]
Founders will often take money from seed-only funds or will take money from several multi-stage funds in order to mitigate the signalling risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually angel investing was the response to that, individuals who weren't wealthy enough to join a fund and become an LP but had enough disposable assets that if they put $50,000 - $1M at risk it wouldn't ruin their retirement if they lost it all. One of the things that I haven't read about is what is the 'YC' of movies? In many ways the money in Hollywood is there but there isn't nearly the organization like there…
YC probably most closely resembles the talent agency William Morris.
YC resembles a top-tier investment bank, like Goldman Sachs: they gussy you up for the road show, they introduce you to their very large network of investors, and they take 7%. And they get high prices for their clients because they (YC/Goldman Sachs) has a reputation for getting the best companies into the funnel, which is in turn based on getting high prices for their clients.
This is what happens when (as an industry) you don't treat people well, when you feel have the power to do as you please. Let me explain: pre-Ycombinator a lot of VCs would routinely either abuse or just simply ignore a lot of entrepreneurs. Someone can correct me but YC was a response to that. One reason everyone flocks to YC is because everyone knows that YC is fair and trustworthy. That's not the case anywhere els…
Actually angel investing was the response to that, individuals who weren't wealthy enough to join a fund and become an LP but had enough disposable assets that if they put $50,000 - $1M at risk it wouldn't ruin their retirement if they lost it all. One of the things that I haven't read about is what is the 'YC' of movies? In many ways the money in Hollywood is there but there isn't nearly the organization like there…
YC doesn't have anything like a monopoly on great startups. If investors can't find their own great startups they don't deserve to be successful as investors. What all SV investors should be worried about is crowdfunding. Most of them don't have anything to offer beyond money and that doesn't count for much if users pay millions in advance. Oculus took VC money but you can bet it was on incredibly advantageous terms…
Except a16z was their Series B investor, Oculus raised their Series A from a bunch of mid-tier VCs which implies it wasn't a hugely competitive round hence probably wasn't on particularly favourable terms. By the time a16z invested Oculus had John Carmack as CTO and they already demoed to huge interest at E3. It was already a much later stage company by that point.