Ha, if even YC is doing layoffs you know the valley is in deep shit.
Changes at YC
501–510 of 562 posts
Re: Changes at YC
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
This is a good playbook. When we have to sell the house and move to a trailer, i will be using it. "There will be some exciting changes around here."
You could also use the cliché favoured by startups, 'Our incredible journey', normally used in a blogpost when they fold or get bought out.
Re: Changes at YC
#503Wow. First time I've seen a layoff post that starts with boasting success. Summary: "6% of the companies we invest in are worth a billion dollars. We're laying of 20% of our staff. We appreciate their efforts. No comment on how we're taking care of those laid off or remaining staff"
They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
SUNSET the employees.
Re: Changes at YC
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re going to hint at elaborate kick-back schemes, at least spend the effort to think through how that would work and spell it out.
It doesn't need to be that elaborate. Funding a startup and strongly suggesting they bank at SVB and then YC invests in SVB, telling other VC's to invest in SVB is all the kick back you need. Stock goes up you sell off some or leverage that for loans to invest in more startups. Stock goes down, your loan leverage/assets are down and can't invest any more. I don't know if that's the case here, just saying this example…
That’s about the worst possible kickback scheme I can think of. Deposits drive so little of a bank’s profit that you would have to be the dumbest grifter in the world to setup such an expensive referral program with only the hope of stock appreciation.
Re: Changes at YC
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren't "startups that die" they're "businesses that did absolutely nothing wrong that die". Americans do not want to live in a world where a business can die through picking the wrong bank, full stop. Just because the investors in those startups don't get fleeced by a bank doesn't mean they're "bailed out". And "startup" here is not "craps shoot on if it exists in a week" it's "a substantial percentage of busin…
> because you don't understand that a bailout is exclusive to investors in the direct company receiving financial support Yeah, it's clear at this point that not only are you trying to play an annoying little semantic game, but to make things worse, you also have no material domain knowledge. For reference, a bailout explicitly does not serve investors, but rather immediate business counterparties. From the second so…
> From the second source: "A bailout occurs when the government makes payments (including loans, loan guarantees, cash, and other types of consideration) to a liquidity-constrained private agent in order to enable that agent to pay its creditors and counterparties, when the agent is not entitled to those payments under a statutory scheme."
So literally not what happened, got it.
Of course you don't feel burdened by the meaning of words, but now at least anyone reading this will be aware that you don't know what "bailout" means, and that what happened in 2008 is nothing at all like what is happening now, and that was my goal. Mission accomplished.
Frankly David, you should know better. You've benefitted massively from these VCs already in your life, and at certain parts you would have been devastated to suddenly lose access to the very funds you're now advocating people be robbed of, but you clearly lack the ability to empathize with folks who want to travel a similar path to you.
Re: Changes at YC
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Where does this come from? Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
You can't possibly believe this PR scheme, do you?
of course it's total bullshit but it's wrong to blame the people getting bullshitted and not the bullshitter
Re: Changes at YC
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
YC's success is due to a combination of luck, skill, and yes, the most juiced bull market in a century. That last one is less of a factor than one might think though. Everyone has benefitted from easy money. So if were a primary factor then every early stage investor would have a 6% unicorn hit rate and that's clearly not true. I'm not an insider and I don't personally know any of their principals. But I have followe…
Connections in the government? Care to elaborate? How would a government connection increase your success in terms of investing in the right start up?
One way is getting a 8 or 9 figure government contract from said government connection.
Re: Changes at YC
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is. I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their fa…
That works in internet logic but it's not true. At least, it's not what I've been told inside YC and I don't believe anyone was lying. What it's actually related to is Garry taking over YC and deciding to refocus YC on its original roots. (I specifically asked about that today during an all-hands btw.) At a minimum, it takes longer than 3 days to make a big change like this. I realize that's not a persuasive argument…
With all respect, those interpretations differ only in spin. "Let's refocus on our roots" and "Oh shit, the gravy train dried up so we can't run our late stage cyclic money printer anymore; at least we still dominate the seed landscape" describe the same actions.
And as for assuming good faith that this was a fait accompli already in progress... I'm sorry, but I can't get past "We're doing this on the first business day following the biggest upset to our industry in a decade and a half. But that's just a coincidence!"
Re: Changes at YC
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually believe he put out a 10/10 example of how this should be done. We all know what he meant, he was concise and then reminded you of the mission and that this is all about the mission.
Maybe you can grant him 9/10, but you always have to deduct some points for hiding behind euphemisms.
nah. im not a retarded pussy, so I don't have a problem with tone. I've never dyed my hair purple (im pretty sure that shit seeps into the brain).
Re: Changes at YC
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the corruption of the US system of business and capitalism (and I'm a capitalist). Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward.
> Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.
Employees get paid to work, but are abused. Sure they can leave, but things aren't always that simple. Things are normalized.
Just like you can "just leave" an abusive relationship, but instead much of the system is abusive to their employees.