How Do I Find Yc Founders To Reccommed Me

Does YC withal require founders motion to the Bay Area? That is a significant brunt for say, older founders with families. I mention that considering the pitch says: "We know that corking founders can come up from anywhere — any city, schoolhouse, country or background" But the application form says: "If we invest in you, your group is expected to move to the Bay Area for June–Aug 2017." There's a bit of a disconnect, and I'm curious how it's reconciled.

YC is only 3 months. Last I checked they nonetheless expect you to come to the bay area, merely only for those 3 months. After that you can practise every bit you please. I know this may exist challenging in some situations, but I doubt YC could offer the same value remotely. For starters, many of the talks given off the record would never happen if they were being streamed and could easily be recorded. You lot besides would have less interaction with beau batchmates, be less involved in group function hours, and a myriad of other modest details that come from beingness present. For remote to piece of work (at YC or in the workplace) I believe information technology needs to be fostered and prioritized, and YC as it is now was never built effectually making remote piece of work. If that is always going to piece of work I suspect an entire batch would demand to exist remote and the entire feel redesigned for that batch, and that doesn't appear to be a priority for YC.

I'd be very interested in meliorate understanding what information technology takes to make something similar YC piece of work remotely. Indeed, if I ever left my ain job to commencement a visitor again, this is the space I'd similar to explore most. It feels to me that there'southward an incredible untapped potential of talent that simply can not relocate or even come up to an office on a regular footing (due to disability, economical reasons, visa status, age, family obligations, etc). If we can unlock that potential then there is so much more nosotros tin can do as a lodge. If anyone at YC (or anyone else) is interested in talking, delight reach out.

I talk to a lot of international founders and one of the biggest obstacles they face is fundraising. In some places, it'due south easy to raise seed, merely hard once you lot hit Serial A territory. In other places, it'south even hard raising seed. The Bay Expanse has a huge population of angels. In the Bay Area, y'all're also surrounded by a large population of startup founders who can assistance yous. If you lot're building a startup community internationally, you'd take to build both a community of angels and a customs of experienced founders. It'due south a cede for many founders to come up to Silicon Valley for three months, but at this signal in history, I believe it yet helps most companies immensely.

I don't think anyone would argue against the advantage of being there in person. The question to me is this: tin nosotros brand information technology better for people who can't exist there? (I.e., raise the foundation, not contend the ceiling.)

Yep, they require all the founders to be in the Bay Area from June-August 2017. As well appears they take done away with the fellowship, which did not require a fellow to relocate.

I've noticed a lot of effort over the past year to get more than startups interested in YC (bargain flow). I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying now -- YC is just not the aforementioned anymore. It's lost its appeal and exclusiveness factor. People are just turned off from it. I hope some of the YC team reads this comment and takes listen.

> YC is just non the aforementioned anymore This is probably a good thing given that the original value suggestion (accelerating spider web startups) makes nada sense today. Twelve years ago there were an enormous number of people continued to the web but not much skilful content. The network was primed for hyper virality, then the only viable strategies were to raise huge amounts of money on a deck or an MVP, or else have on five cofounders (and later fire iii of them). Any other strategy and you'd get completely destroyed. These days this is no longer the instance. The spider web is already saturated with content, so there is naught risk of having a competitor'south site go super viral overnight. And the fact that consumer expectations are much higher and you need to blueprint for 3+ screen sizes means it takes much longer to accomplish product market place fit. Being bootstrapped is no longer a huge disadvantage. Neither is not being a genius, the tools are all easy at present. At that place are still going to exist new startups that reach the size of Facebook, merely they're going to go there by grinding, non overnight by using some party fob. The new YC makes a lot more sense in this new landscape. Most other investors are even so looking for startups that fit the pattern of Facebook and Twitter, and these are the ones who are going to lose all their money.

This is a consummate Non sequitur. Yes, all of what yous said is correct near a dissimilar mural, but none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious, less exclusive, take many more than startups, and make the entire process as impersonable as possible so that they can brand the most money from it like a big corporation. YC is just not the same anymore, non in the way you are talking about, in the bad way.

> none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious In 2005 YC's thesis was that the smartest technical people would brand the best founders. That's why when yous practical for startup school, they asked you what your favorite technologies were. And while in that location were certainly Java people there, the expected answers were clearly Python, Lisp, or Haskell. The reason information technology may feel less exclusive now is because they're now actively encouraging people to apply rather than (arguably) actively discouraging people from applying. But that's considering A) they know the original thesis was wrong B) you can basically now acquire the technical skills needed to build a startup by spending a few hours watching YouTube video about Django, so for most startups at that place isn't really any advantage conferred past being some sort of technical genius. While it'south true there are more startups now, it'south besides much harder to go far. Back in 2005 - 2007, probably a third of the startups went out of business without ever even launching. And it was expected that some other 3rd would never get any users. The stuff that would get yous funded in 2006 not only wouldn't get you an interview today, it wouldn't even get you the email saying you were close to getting an interview.

Great. I agree with you on what yous are saying, merely like your last post. I agree the bar has changed dramatically for getting into startups and building software, hosting software, and edifice infrastructure. AGAIN....that doesn't conclude why YC is less personable, getting larger at the pace that it is today to the bespeak that it's not equally tight knit equally information technology should be etc. That was actually the merely thing existence mainly criticized in this thread, to which you brought up a truthful fact of the state of startup ecosystem, simply not a fact which properly concludes and addresses the criticism. Anyway, good post so take an upvote at least.

Agreed. I've worked for a couple YC companies, and founders have complained that its really difficult to postal service jobs on HN, that pitch day is a wash because of so many companies pitching, and access to mentors has evaporated/minimized. I believe the Accelerator model tin can scale, 500SU is a proficient instance, merely I'thou not sure the value that YC offers tin scale.

I'd like to know more nearly your experience - feel complimentary to email me at michael@ycombinator.com

There'south authenticity in all of these comments. Simply - if you're going to accept $100K Affections from someone - who would you prefer it to be? YC is even so the acme. You go 'some make', 'access to a lot of investors' - and some residual benefits from network access. That's more than you become with most entities. And so if you lot're not 'hooked up' into investor networks, or are from an expanse that does not take practiced 'startup zen' - then YC is even so probably the peak pick. And FYI I have no specific love for YC, and not relationship to them. And yep - though I think they are pretty good, I too call back they aren maybe a footling 'over-hyped', but that's not their fault. (Please don't ban me :) )

Hold, as someone that's applied to YC multiple times in the past, I've decided that I will not be applying considering I increasingly feel that there'south a disconnect betwixt YC's orginal purpose and what it's become.

Practice you listen elaborating on what that change of purpose? Every bit a 2-time alum and now a partner my goal is to preserve YC's goal of supporting early on stage founders. How do you call up our goal has changed and what thoughts do you have on reversing that modify?

Thanks for asking, it'south a few things, most of which are most probable a bias on my part. (1) YC has a bias against solo founders; research shows this is not a point of future success and to me information technology feels like I'm giving up 17-53.5% of a venture but to make it; YC gets 7% of whatsoever venture it funds and YC requires a cofounder have at least x% equity, simply suggest going l/50. (ii) I personally don't agree with YC doing R&D and feel similar this is YC admitting the yield it'south getting from bankroll startups is under performing it doing its own thing, which to me is not a adept betoken. (3) Majority of YC'south billion dollar startups have all gone through a single VC; why non but deal with them straight? (iv) YC should focus on enabling mentors to expand it's deal menstruum. (5) YC should have campus within 60-miles of the Bay Area with free housing, nutrient, super-speed internet, etc. then startups don't have to spend the funds on commodities like this and are able to focus on growing. Free healthcare for a year for founders would exist impressive likewise. (7) I'g opinionated, largely do startups to learn, non be the side by side billionaire; personally, done more than startups than 99% of founders, practice information technology full-time, and accept spent 15-mins plus mentoring 1000s of founders. (8) YC should gear up the precedent for making the Bay Expanse not exist the heart of the universe for startups. (9) I miss PG. __ (Above are merely a few of the reasons.)

Surely with those numbers, YC doesn't give you annihilation and never would? You have all the experience. You've mentored and so many founders that surely at least a couple can gear up access to VCs. Why even bother applying in the first place?

While if someone asked, I would likely disembalm my startup experience, generally speaking I leave information technology off standard requests for information like YC'southward app; more than interested in being judge on the matter at hand than my by. My guess is that my pitches might be too off the wall or they have a bias against anonymous users. Or more likely, my pitch is not a skillful fit for YC. Who knows, as anyone that applies knows, they do not say why they turn down to interview a given founder or fund them, and no i actually should expect a reason for why either, that simply is unreasonable. Every bit for why I would apply, I am positive that I would get more value out of it than what they are taking, that I would provide a return on their investment, I honey doing startups, and enjoy being effectually talented founders. Most of all, given I would be taking on funding, information technology would force me to change the fashion I normally fund & run startups; that beingness I normal practise not take the objective of selling the startup or being a multi billion dollar company. As for VCs, while I practise not have anything against them and believe they provide value based on a well defined situation, I prefer to focus on doing startups, non building businesses; significant all of my startups make money while I am working on them, when I am done, I move on to the next startup, since I value my time more than the money I would make finding a buyer, dealing with all the due diligence requests, and supporting the handoff too.

not parent, just here's my off the cuff accept i) the batch sizes might have something to practise with it i.e. larger batch sizes don't foster the aforementioned community feel as smaller ones. I think maybe ~20 might be the sweet spot. 2) Electric current leaders don't have equally much of a "visionary/thoughtleader/mentor" feel that pg used to. Don't become me wrong, they seem to be super nice and relatable, simply don't give off the aforementioned vibe of wisdom/difficult core technical skills. hth

I think you nailed information technology when you lot said exclusiveness: with and so many companies per batch, in that location's less incentive for a startup to be one of the hundreds of companies in the YC portfolio now over whatever other VC firm. Yes, YC carries some brand weight still, but with less of the benefits it looked to take had before.

I think the underlying issue is a misalignment of interest between YC and startup founders but not exclusive to YC but to all Venture Capitalists: you are nothing but ane of YC's many hedged phone call options where they take a good take a chance of recouping the investment where equally y'all really cannot time travel or demand YC pay you for the time wasted. To me YC was a largely branding move. Information technology'south fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed". Besides many people in the industry are then caught up with being a "Startup" that they forget that they are merely similar any other "Businesses" but with far less control over your own destiny and even far less likely to win much coin than working at a large company where you have high probability of becoming a millionaire in the same corporeality of time yous spent on your startup. People are biased and self select their impaired luck as insight that gives them an border which obviously does non translate or is repeatable-have a look at the graveyard, techcrunch won't go whatever views reporting anything but hyped up PR pieces.

I'm not sure I sympathize your point here. I'grand currently working very hard with Adora (my co-group partner) to back up the companies in our YC grouping. Advice, office hours, motivation, community build, and general availability. Are you maxim that this work is just a branding practice? If so at present that the application process if over - why am I not on holiday?

This respond is disingenuous. It is clearly written what he meant: >To me YC was a largely branding move. Information technology's fashionable to be able to say "yep we are YC backed". Reply to the actual comment instead of setting upward a strawman. And, you may desire to affect the other point the parent fabricated, namely incentives being misaligned between YC and startups. Indignation isn't doing the brand any good.

Unfortunately (I say unfortunately cause I wish this wasn't true), you are not right. Information technology is harder to get into YC at present than it ever was before. While y'all are busy looking at the numerator (number of companies in the batch) - yous are ignoring the denominator (number of applicants).

I think the business may exist that people who care about the prestige (VCs/employees/acquirers, mostly) also will ignore the denominator. Saying "we're a YC company" holds more cachet when at that place are 10 companies per batch and y'all can proper name all of them than when there are 120 companies per batch. There seems to be a mental switch that people motion-picture show when the set of options goes from "can agree all of them in my curt-term retention and sympathize what's special about each of them" to "oh, this is just an example of X", and it'due south the same switch as between monopoly vs. commodity businesses or between founders vs. employees. People are arguably wrong for having that switch, but they have it all the same.

While the percent of companies accustomed may exist shrinking, aren't the size of the batches increasing? Regardless, with every batch that graduates YC, y'all are effectively splitting the amount of time Partners and Mentors can dedicate to each individual company by an even greater amount. And while YC has added new Partners and Mentors, I'm not convinced that your supply of expertise is growing fast enough to come across the need that you are creating with each new batch. Then again, possibly you are. I'grand sure my perspective isn't the greatest. I don't want to seem overly-critical, I'1000 still a fan of YC and I proceed to recommend information technology, but I'grand not sure the class of '17 will get the same value that the class of '07 did.

Information technology seems like there is a much larger group of mentors as well, and then the mentor time per team is probably abiding. Also, there'southward a network effect of YC companies helping others. It's kind of like McKinsey getting added do good from being the largest strategy consulting business firm. More than partners to reach out to. (I have no horse in this race - no amalgamation with YC or YC funded companies)

Well I was in the form of '07 and I can tell you that this is simply non true. Over the by 10 years YC has added many more mentors, at that place are many more alumni to help you lot and to seel to, their is significantly more experience behind the advice, and the brand is significantly more powerful.

So you feel that the ROI is greater for companies going through YC now than information technology was 10 years agone? I suppose it'southward true that the network of founders has grown significantly, but it's hard for me to imagine that a founder in the class of '17 becoming the head of the YC Accelerator.

Wow - I'm not sure what you are basing that on simply it tin't be whatever knowledge of the current grade.

It has nothing to do with the electric current form. You're missing my point. You could have the next Elon Musk or Marc Andreessen in the current class, and given that you guys are YC, you probably do. My betoken is this: for every person added to a network of individuals, the opportunity to create strong bonds with each person in the network is reduced, even while the value and strength of the network itself is increased. A larger network means more than opinions, more expertise and more connections (every person added to the network brings their own network of connections). Thus making the network more than valuable to each individual fellow member. However, once networks reach a certain size, that value is oftentimes extrapolated indirectly. Someone asks someone else to ask a tertiary person a favor, because the second person knows the third improve than the first. Thus, the likelihood or ability for each fellow member to form strong relationships with everyone, or the more VIP members of the network, decreases. This not a knock on YC or the electric current cohort. I'thousand a large fan of YC and I'chiliad fully confident the W17 form is equally quality as every other grade that's gone through, but network dynamics shift as quantity increases.

With all due respect, even though that might be true, that still doesn't necessarily conclude why YC has to keep to grow and take a larger and larger number at the pace that it is. Information technology'south articulate what you're maxim is true. Startups are trendy now and part of popular culture, therefore demand for doing them and number of applicants, as well as quality, get up. That still doesn't mean YC has to aggrandize at such a massive and incredible stride. Even so, I do call back you guys know more than nearly it plainly than us from the outside. Go along up the good work. :) But giving my .02

I've applied to YC several times (more than than 4, over the class of 7+ years). I never got accepted. In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback. In my stance, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and movement forward. Having rejected from YC without whatsoever feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time" If I could do all my startups once again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In almost cases, rejection is and so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall autonomously. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big brunt on team morale. I recollect instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their concern model. Awarding process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, just rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to utilize, and go along to update their progress with YC. YC can monitor these startups, and offering guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals. If I could evidence y'all what I had to go through, to get to that phase, and is seeking your assist, would yous lend me a hand?

I retrieve this comment "In virtually cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even potent teams fall autonomously." may hint at the success of the vetting process. If your team tin't withstand not getting into YC, I'd suggest it may not exist able to stand the rigors of the kickoff-up process. I'yard in a similar boat equally you having applied a few times, and never been accepted, but that never remotely affected progress on the projects.

The dissonance in your comment is quite strong. On the one hand we're to believe that applying and being rejected resulting in a team falling apart is proof the organisation works, on the other, applying and existence rejected acquired you to keep going. Doesn't that second case prove that the evaluation doesn't work? Personally I feel that if y'all're going to do a startup not getting accustomed into an accelerator is the same as not winning the lottery so assume you won't go in and try anyway if yous tin do so without spending a lot of time (which is a finite resource). On the other paw I tin come across how people from various countries with an environment less geared towards start-ups would benefit from being in YC to the point that if they tin can't make it the whole thing is lost for them. I wouldn't have that as proof that the vetting process works.

That's not what I'thousand maxim "not sure how you got at that place", what I'm proverb is that YC wants to fund strong teams that are going to run into things through. If a small bump in the road like not getting into YC is such a proof to the team that the thought didn't work, that is 'A' proof that the team was not strong enough. Information technology evidently isn't everything. Non getting in and standing is not proof that y'all are a strong squad, all it says is that you're focused on the business/project not everything is weighted on how one grouping views what y'all're doing. Does that make more sense? I strongly disagree that non getting accustomed to an accelerator is the same as not winning. I can't tell you lot how strongly I feel that way, and I've been through an accelerator before (not YC). It'south like saying not getting investment is the same as not winning, and that is also non truthful. What does it even mean. Not getting into an accelerator or getting funding isn't boolean. It's a 'nonetheless'. Y'all met with an investor and they didn't invest. You lot don't stop and give up. My very outset customer phone call I had an astonishing target tell me they "didn't want to apply my product and wanted to ensure that nobody did!". That sounds like failure to me. The side by side 10 customers I spoke to couldn't expect to employ the product. We've had 30k+ users and millions of visits. This was only one persons opinion, and you demand to look at getting accepted by accelerators and investors in the same light. You have to find your ain confidence. Listen to their feedback if you can go information technology, but I'd hope you take their acceptence as a weak signal. I hope that clarifies. Keep up the good fight.

Yes. I agree with you, but I call up team dynamics are more complicated than that. It'south very difficult to detect decent and/or experienced co-founder(s). Given you are lucky plenty to find them, and look them to work for free. Given the rigors of the start-up process, when should they look to surrender and move to something new? I've worked on a project for 3 years without pay. I filed defalcation. My partner had a divorce. We had traction and revenue, but not plenty to support ourselves. We ended upward closing down. Getting into YC is tough. It also gives y'all an indication that something is going correct. YC as well gives you lot enough padding to make sure you are not distracted from harsh realities of life.

That all sounds aweful tpae, and I'chiliad pitiful to hear you're having such a crude go of it. Everybody always says offset-ups are hard, and there is no guarantee of success. In fact, most people say the there is about a guarantee of failure. What keeps usa going is the unfortunate promise of something ameliorate. I promise things improve for you.

> Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, only rather a procedure. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and keep to update their progress with YC. This is a good idea. Look out for some announcements from us soon: https://twitter.com/sama/status/821538708943880193 I've been rejected iv times too. It doesn't feel skilful, but you need to be able to accept these things in your stride and continue going. Startups are a grind. > In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, and then rejection with nada feedback. I tin can guarantee yous that multiple people look at every single awarding. This is actually part of the reason it's hard to give feedback to everyone who applies (permit alone the sheer volume) - the reasons for rejection can vary betwixt reviewers. Subsequently all the scores are tallied, there's no single individual who can speak to why a given application didn't make the cut.

Thanks, I don't programme on stopping anytime before long. I am feeling pretty adept, rejection is just part of life :P I but wanted to give feedback, didn't mean to vent. I would beloved to come across YC going in that direction. Looking forward to it!

Sounds equally if you are proposing that they put a lot more time and work into nurturing the top and center of their funnel. Practise you believe that this incremental (just not small) investment of their limited resources would yield them better outcomes for themselves?

I have to concord. I applied to YC a few years back, failed, and subsequently shut down the business. If I ever start another visitor, I doubt highly that I would utilize to YC. I'g non even really certain why. I just don't equate it with prestige anymore.

Information technology's probably due to the higher number of YC backed companies that it'south losing that exclusive nature coupled with the market correction in the startup labor market-people are becoming increasingly less obsessed with playing lottery with their time and more likely to bootstrap to control their own destiny or observe a stable job-nosotros've seen enough of what "acquisition" actually means.

An overlooked alternative is to: 1) Reduce your burn rate. 2) Save up enough money to alive off of for a year. iii) Bootstrap your startup off your savings. I am going to make a guess that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure. Getting funding, from YC or elsewhere, has a way of irresolute your startup in a way that makes it much less likely to succeed. They take said so in fact -- they want you to neglect chop-chop.

That might piece of work for some people but in my case having enough cash to burn for a year of runway was a significant contributing factor to why my startup failed - it took focus abroad from getting traction. We spent too long making our product "perfect" considering nosotros didn't need to exist out there selling right away. Having no money makes you pick upwardly the telephone, which puts you in front of customers getting feedback. By the time we started hustling we'd built the wrong affair (well, the right affair to fix the hurting we wanted to solve, just the wrong thing for our market), and it was too late to rescue the visitor. My advice, if you tin can do it, would be to start now rather than saving up to give yourself a twelvemonth of cash in the bank. It's harder simply that's not e'er a bad matter.

As long as the timing of the failure does non bear upon the potiental for success, why would you not want to neglect sooner than later?

Sorry for the terse reply. I but accept fourth dimension for a short reply. There are two ways of thinking about a trouble. And they both are important: ane) Why wouldn't this work? 2) How can nosotros brand it work? When you get funding, information technology's generally about ane and not so much about 2. I am not sure that Instagram would take survived receiving funding. https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.ane... Another aspect of it that I don't really want to become into right now... when an outsider looks at your company, they don't really understand what'due south going on. Just they do accept a bunch of rules of thumb that they like. They may or may not employ to your company. But in their minds, y'all're a bad company if you do non adhere to them. VCs admit to thinking this way. They call it "design matching."

Aye. Agreed. In case you missed it, I retracted my statement in a follow-up reply. Some modification to my earlier statement is accurate. :-) Unfortunately, I don't take time right now to iterate on it. If you're interested, you'll have to detect it yourself.

Actually, information technology is not true that Instagram had not received funding at the time the story took identify. I am referring more to typical pressures, some of which founders identify on themselves.

They take said so in fact -- they want you lot to fail quickly. That doesn't make you more likely to fail though. Quite the contrary on the long run.

"That doesn't make you more than likely to neglect though" Actually, information technology does. They desire y'all to fail quickly so they tin can (in)validate your initial business organization plan. But business plans for start ups that don't fail chop-chop often evolve through ane or more pivots. For example, come across slack and twitter.

Information technology dramatically changes how you run a business when people who invest in your startup treat it like an ICO (initial money offering)-"if my 1,000,000 shares today is worth a cent imagine when I notice another dumbass to buy it for a few dollars in a few quarters and I sell half to cover my initial investment and let it run I'll be rich". You aren't in the business of solving bug and making money anymore just how to inflate share price as quickly as possible by focusing on KPI that will get other suckers moisture.

> I am going to make a judge that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure. What's your definition of "strongest"? In terms of success measured by go out size, it's empirically untrue. Perchance if you are measuring by failure rate, but even then, I doubt information technology.

Re: "empirically untrue," my guess is about the future, for which there is no data, so I don't recall it can be "empirically untrue." If y'all figured out a way to collect information from the future, I am very interested! FWIW, it tin't be empirically truthful either. :-) What I am saying is that starting off ane's journey by taking money or going through an accelerator enters y'all into an efficient machine for edifice a startup in a specific way. From what I have observed, entering this path often traps founders into thinking this is the 1 true mode to build a startup. In reality, the paths to product-market place fit are unknown. You oftentimes find them through serendipity. Being rigid can cause you to miss them. I am not saying a startup should never have money. Once a startup has discovered their magic, i.e. achieved product-market fit, then taking money and using it to scale is the correct way to go.

To really respond your question, I do not think the next Google will have gone through an accelerator. Maybe they will take funding at some indicate in their lifetime, but their success will not exist owed to inbound a rigid assembly line for startups.

Techstars is one of the best accelerators and they still have almost 10 companies per batch. They have expanded beyond the original location in Bedrock which is how they accept chosen to scale rather than having 100s of companies in one location. http://www.techstars.com/companies/

AngelPad [1] is probably the simply "top tier" highly exclusive accelerator program left. All of the remainder accept (entirely reasonably) scaled as businesses. At ~12 companies per batch y'all won't become a more personalized experience. Thomas Korte and Carine Magescas intendance securely about their founders and the entire experience is very, very personal - I can't recommend them enough. [1] https://angelpad.org

there are a lot of specialized, quality accelerators out there. Alchemist, Launchpad, HAX, River, etc.

>I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying at present -- YC is merely not the same anymore. It'southward lost its entreatment and exclusiveness factor. People are but turned off from it. Surely they're also proverb why as well? Not much assist without the why, otherwise merely hearsay.

> People are merely turned off from information technology. Possibly information technology's because YC pivoted from startups to social justice?

I think a lot of early stage startups expect upwards to YC acceptance as validation, only when yous apply at the early on phase, yous get rejected almost automatically. Too much accent on number of users, acquirement, etc. So a lot of potentially great startups die before they even meet the lite of twenty-four hours. Feedback to early phase startups could encourage more founders to apply and keep going. Otherwise it's fourth dimension consuming to put an application together. I accept a feeling that the next Facebook, Google, etc. will not exist discovered in whatever accelerator programme.

I would imagine that as investors YC would like to invest in the founders that look at users and acquirement every bit validation of their ideas rather than acceptance into YC every bit validation. Non only does that show the startup is more viable but shows the dedication of the founders. I agree with you on feedback. I would Dearest specific reasons why I was not accepted as information technology would give me very clear goals to shoot for. I also understand that the time to provide that feedback would exist crippling to their own productivity. (As an aside, I wonder if we are past the stage of another Facebook or Google. In a macro sense it seems as if we might be at a chip of a pullback from globalization and a result of that might exist less new large global companies. I wonder if the next global companies of that size come from India or Brazil but for that to be the example the company would really need to come at the aforementioned time of massive economic growth and reduced corruption.)

Really, threescore% of YC companies are pre-launch when they utilise. We care deeply virtually making sure YC stays a place for early stage companies.

YC is failing in the same way that so many in one case-great startups fail. They're not innovating or reinventing themselves, at all. And YC really does need to change with the times. Paul Graham was the big reason people wanted then badly to get into YC and he's essentially gone now It'southward now obvious to everyone that YC can't grant success to founders, it can "only" grant opportunity. Then why non admit that YC needs good founders more than than good founders need YC? It's e'er been true but now information technology should be obvious to all. So, drop all the fake eliteness, secret panels of "experts", and insider-lodge mentality. Just straight up tell founders what the requirements are for YC funding and then fund them! For case say that all YC startups need: 1. I competent programmer willing to dedicate years. 2. At least i other person willing to dedicate years. three. A Launched and usable prototype software. What else do you lot need to know, whether they went to the right school? Whether they're attractive??? How practiced their spoken English is???

Honestly - it would brand our jobs and so much easier if there was a simple guide on how to effigy out what makes a good startup. The problem is that a successful startup is the exception. Information technology is hard to design a process to detect outliers. Here are some links to guidance we provide: http://www.ycombinator.com/howtoapply/ http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/ http://www.paulgraham.com/get-go.html Here are some questions I ask myself when reading applications: Can they build their ain MVP? Is there a massively unequal disinterestedness split? Do the founders take pre-exisiting relationships? Do they have a non-obvious/controversial insight on their space Is the trouble being solved significant (trouble a lot of people have or people pay money for)? Am I impressed with the progress they accept made since starting? If they don't become into YC - volition the keep working on this company?

>If they don't get into YC - volition the proceed working on this visitor? I practical last batch with ICanPriceIt.com, have a functional MVP only no traction and didn't become an invite. Since then I've spent more time working on my Amazon reselling business- I'm a lot more passionate virtually the startup ideas I take, only not confident enough to shut down my profitable concern to work on those. In other words, I'll very likely only work on this company if funded, or it might accept a year or two earlier I'm comfortable enough to self-fund. My agreement is that that hurts my chances of getting into YC significantly. Is that correct? Is there any chance of YC funding a regular boring reselling visitor? There's footling adventure of being worth $1 billion ever, but there are several ones in the $100 one thousand thousand range (etailz sold a few months ago for $75 million, pharmapacks is selling over $100 million a year). Should I try applying for that business?

I would love YC to open up satellite offices in Seattle and Vancouver. Both accept neat talent pools. YC should at to the lowest degree do an experiment. Aforementioned time zones and non too far from SF.

There should be more ways to become help if you lot are at a pre-YC stage. I'd imagine at that place are a lot of startups that fail earlier they become to a YC stage. Startup School is skilful just it's not ongoing. Most VC firms accept been more helpful than YC in the early on stages personally. For example, I've had VC firms write me a letter of recommendation for a visa when that's not something YC would do. I tin see YC is trying to increase menstruum. Why non make information technology more organic?

YC does write letter of recommendations for visas one time they get to know you (ie once they've funded you). I'm sure private partners do this also for founders they know personally and are outside YC, I doubt VC firms do that without knowing y'all personally.

In fact I sign all of YC visa recommendation letters so simply want to requite a +1 on this comment :)

That is helpful for someone that is actually early or thinking about starting a startup but there is a huge void between that and getting into YC. My supposition is that if someone I know is at a stage that they'd get into YC that they already know about YC and are able to make a better decision to apply or non than me. I've told people about function hours in their city. Something that is helpful and they might not know about.

I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised past what nosotros release. It'due south going beyond a traditional MOOC.

Best of luck getting much of the world to apply in the next couple months with so much visa uncertainty for the next four years. What is your plan for founders who become turned back at the airdrome if they chose you? PHD-in-progress wasn't skilful enough reason to enter the US last week and y'all want the smart people to apply for something in months. What happened to YC's remote etc stuff? That would have been helpful about now.

I don't hateful to flamebait or troll or annihilation, but lots of the "misconceptions" seem grounded in data, based on the very information that y'all're putting forward: https://blog.ycombinator.com/mutual-misconceptions-about-app... > Misconception: Only US companies get into YC. > S16: 29% were from exterior the US. And so it'southward mostly true. > Misconception: I need to raise a seed circular before I employ to YC. > S16: False. fourteen.ii% of accepted companies weren't even incorporated when they applied. So it's mostly true. The list goes on and on. Not that it removes the merit of YC or annihilation, merely, hey, listen neutering the PR/marketing BS a bit to give the actual picture without trying to paint lipstick all over the pig? ;-) The way that FAQ or whatever it is reads atm is: "Our deal flow is not as large as we'd like, so please ship more applications in so nosotros tin bear witness we've tons of demand to those we raised funds from and ensure they'll invest over again because we get to be picky since we're hugely popular!" Which is PR/marketing at the terminate of the mean solar day, simply merely don't be misleading to would-be founders.

I don't have an opinion on YC one way or the other, but...exercise yous have an axe to grind? At that place are merely iii numbers in that listing that don't overwhelmingly support the claims made. You phone call that a listing that "goes on and on", "PR/marketing BS", and "lipstick all over the pig"?

No, I'm merely a marketer myself, with some experience backside their side of the table, so I felt like calling out "oh really?!?" types of statements when I come across them for the gullible entrepreneur types (met many) who might thoughtlessly drink the cool-aid. Besides, there were more than than three. A few more that stood out, and I'm sure we could argue on a few more: > Misconception: I've raised too much money for YC. Is a sampling anomaly for all nosotros know. > Misconception: I'g too far forth for YC. Likewise. > Misconception: Solo founders aren't accepted. Seriously? "8.v% had a solo founder." > Misconception: I demand to know someone at YC or have an alumni recommendation. Likewise. "54.7% did not take a recommendation." Of those that did/didn't, how many got accepted? > Misconception: I'll never go far. Right, 100% who got in applied, meet? Meaningless.

Then the reason we did this is not considering of deal flow. Over 7500 companies employ to YC every batch and merely 100-150 make it. The reason why we did this is cause the number one reason why companies don't apply to YC is because they don't think they can get in and the number 1 myth about getting into YC is that you lot need an alum to recommend you. We idea that opening up the recommendation system would permit any founder to ask anyone who believes in their company to recommend them (even if they don't know a YC alum). Also, it allows anyone working with a good founder to give them some additional confidence when applying to YC.

"the number one reason why companies don't employ to YC is considering they don't retrieve they can become in" - and 98% of them are correct to think that in each batch. It's certainly in YC'due south interest to encourage as many applications as possible, as YC's selection to say 'aye' or 'no' is always worth >= 0, only I doubtable that for many startups, it's non worth the distraction. So YC can have lots of applicants, a very small admit %, and still be better off with even more applicants. "54.7% did not take a recommendation." (regarding accepted companies) - founders who are applying are not interested in the "percentage of accepted founders who had a recommendation", it'south "what is my chance of acceptance with a recommendation?" vs "what is my chance of acceptance without a recommendation?" For example, if say, l% of 150 'recommended' founders are accustomed, while 1% of 7350 'unrecommended' founders were accepted, you would become similar numbers to those published.

Ok, but if that's what you're trying to solve, how about the full anonymized dataset available for everyone to crisis instead of letting marketing produce a few cherry-picked stats? Might exist just me, but I've met my own fair share of deluded founders and very bright ones. It would be a public service for everyone out in that location if they could come across a VC'south bargain flow exposed as it is, and be able to crunch a few numbers earlier they apply. Might you lot get less deal flow if you did that? Perchance. Might the deal period be more interesting? Might also be... Either way, though, y'all'd be a very interesting source of data for anyone trying to figure out "Exercise I tick virtually of the boxes to go funding or am I just wasting my time?" Raising funds takes lots of enery. Fifty-fifty Paul Graham says so here: http://paulgraham.com/fr.html

29 percent is a lot and definitely proves y'all don't demand to exist from the US. many would argue it should be lower.

Or much higher. There are tons of great startups in Europe, and I'thou sure in that location are many swell ones in east.yard. Republic of india or China too.

Tossing in an idea: Why non employ a rolling application process where founders can update YC on any progress they are making with their startups and an internal organization ranks and reddit-scores the startups. YC tin can jump in and ship a note to a founder any time - like an internal advisory board. When application times about, just send a note to the founders you find promising based on your scoring system and they can provide boosted info like a video or join an interview if needed. This approach would give YC a lot more data and be less distracting to founders. If you desire to reduce book, merely ping companies you know are not VC fundable and allow them movement on. The borderline-based application process is distracting. While the application is helpful, and should be kept, the founders are expected to waste matter time and attention every 6 months wondering "but what if my next iii out of half-dozen months are committed to YC". Now requesting recommendations adds just 1 more distraction. People who are committed to work on their project will likely apply multiple times to an ever-decreasing odds process. If yous keep the application open yr-round nosotros can just direct data your manner whenever it happens and employ it as our ain benchmark. Just a thought.

What exactly does this do? Clicked the links and information technology's not clear if YC is but asking the community send links to the YC Awarding page, of if something else is going on.

It lets you sign up and provide a more detailed recommendation for an individual or team that you recollect should apply to YC. When you lot provide a recommendation, we accomplish out and encourage them to utilise. You tin too rails the status of all your recommendations and meet how they did.

Is this the best mechanism for YC backed founders to recommend other founders who they already know are intending to apply to YC?

Past runway the status, what exactly practise you mean? For example, they submitted an application, were rejected, meet YC, got funding, etc.

Kinda related to some of the discussion. Is in that location anywhere within 2-3 hours of the Bay Area where 1 could start a company withal have a normal house with a normal yard for a family?

Most of the populated areas within two-iii hours of San Francisco (and an even greater ratio of those within 2-three hours of whatsoever part of the Bay Surface area) meet that description.

For a minute I thought information technology would be a service to lucifer founders of fail startup from previous batches with others entrepreneurs willing to use. I would definitely like that.

I'd like YC to possibly practice a blog-post or give some insight into what they are doing here, what they are planning to accomplish, etc. Though that may spoil the data they are trying to collect??

So does this mean that I should contact people in my network to go and recommend me? Is YC going to read all these recommendations or is it going to exist only forwarded to the person applying?

Don't get information technology. You're supposed to recommend a founder but end up on an application page? I don't want to apply - only recommend!

> If you know someone working on a startup who we should encourage to apply for the Summer 2017 batch, recommend them here. What the heck? This post reads like YC can't detect enough founders (in quality + quantity) already. If so, is it due to the changing landscape of startups themselves or the shift in focus from startups to left leaning political ideology?

If you are looking for a i-bed flat, it will toll around $1600-2000. You can find something for less if you are willing to live in a smaller place.

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600462

Posted by: hawkinsconory1967.blogspot.com

Share this post