[deleted]
How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
71–80 of 127 posts
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
VC math follows a power law and expects almost all investments to flop, and the one winner to pay for it all. The question here is not about the flops it’s: are the winners big enough?
And now that they're eliminating diversity in their investments are you still certain they will pick the next generation's winners? All they're investing in are AI companies... Once upon a time someone like me for whom engineering competence is a core aspect of my identity would have never considered turning my back on YC. But now I'm just embarrassed by them. The things they now think are the only things worth inves…
> All they're investing in are AI companies...
Genuine question…
Do you not think that a large percentage of (random cut off) $1b companies over the next 10 years will be AI?
And/or do you not think that the next $100b+ company will be AI-centered?
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#73Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#74Talking about the shift raises the question of why it used to be the other way. Were VCs bad at picking founders who were honest and/or competent, or were VCs always wrong to mistrust founders?
The VC-funded startup environment prior to YC is so different than what we have today that it's weird to compare. Were VCs bad at picking founders in 2004? Mu!
(I raised, with friends, in 1999, and was senior at a VC-funded startup prior to that).
Most people who comment on Hacker News would not have preferred the status quo ante of YC.
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the truth is that recent batches are filled with nepo founders and companies that are not really at the caliber of those that carry these VC names from the past (like pre-2015). Lots of fraud-aligned people/companies too. Now its just a way to sell these companies to those OGs.
It's so easy to post substanceless slurs, but I've been around YC since 2009 and it hasn't changed much from my perspective. The primary difference between pre-2015 and now is that those earlier startups have been around for over a decade longer. Of course the ones who turned out to be successful are better known.
I'm just giving my opinion from what I see. In no way did I "slur" and my point isn't about YC but the founders..
you raise a valid point about survivorship bias I guess, but as of the last few years it seems a lot of rage bait and do anything to get signal instead of the positive optimism that I felt a lot of the companies offered those years ago. i guess what i'm trying to say is that it has become the final version of itself as a venture firm, whereas before it was quirky (again, I am outsider!! so this is my POV) and backed companies that made products/services that I think made my life objectively better.
end of the day, I really like YC and think they do a good thing overall. but I think people/founders have realized how to game it, if that makes sense.
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#76Y Combinator forged a long-term, high-trust ecosystem to the benefit of all tech founders. The video games industry needs to do the same.
The game industry needs no such thing. You can make profitable games very cheaply, and business models are simple and well understood. It’s a matter of just making a good game and getting it good exposure to customers.
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#77This mirrors the military doctrine of "mission tactics" which entrusts subordinates with wide latitude in executing orders. But it requires a high degree of alignment and competence, which explains why YC focuses on founders over product or idea. This makes sense in a dynamic environment with sensitive local conditions and "network lag" in the chain of command. But in more static or settled market environments it may…
Commander's intent is part of the five paragraph order
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#78Sounds like damage control.
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so easy to post substanceless slurs, but I've been around YC since 2009 and it hasn't changed much from my perspective. The primary difference between pre-2015 and now is that those earlier startups have been around for over a decade longer. Of course the ones who turned out to be successful are better known.
I'm just giving my opinion from what I see. In no way did I "slur" and my point isn't about YC but the founders.. you raise a valid point about survivorship bias I guess, but as of the last few years it seems a lot of rage bait and do anything to get signal instead of the positive optimism that I felt a lot of the companies offered those years ago. i guess what i'm trying to say is that it has become the final versio…
I appreciate this follow-up. There's another variable, which I think may be relevant: all of us who have been following YC for the past 10+ years are by definition 10+ years older than we were back then. Some people (edit: at least on internet forums) tend to get more jaded and cynical over time*. I mention this not to accuse you of more than your share of this, but because it's on my mind a lot about the HN community in general. It's why we added "don't be curmudgeonly" to the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, for example.
(* Edit: and they seem to be highly motivated to post comments!)
Re: How Y Combinator made it smart to trust founders
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is possible to be successful in games without being predatory. Humble Bundle was a demonstration of that. I don’t believe that ultra-predatory mechanics are long-term sustainable. They usually yield a “ring of fire” effect that creates a growing ring of users for a while but really you’re burning out all your core users and will implode. This is how many describe the original Zynga model. Supercell (founde…
[flagged]
If you don't consider tens of millions of dollars in revenue a success, your definition of "success" is completely out of whack.