Hacker News Re-Imagined

YC’s $500k Standard Deal

  • 752 points
  • 14 days ago

  • @langitbiru
  • Created a post

YC’s $500k Standard Deal


@Liron 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This is great. YC used to value companies below-market at $1.8M, and now it's effectively valuing them fairly at $5M+. I now feel good about recommending YC to founders.

The argument that YC deserved to take 7% for $125k because it improved a company's prospects more than 7% stopped making sense when the ecosystem became increasingly full of helpful angels willing to pay $500k-1M for that same 7%.

Reply


@opportune 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Very happy with this because it makes raising from YC valuable in terms of the money raised; $125k was not much any more. With $500k you can actually hire one or two (or many more depending on location. Imagine India…) full time employees with > 1 year of runway. Or you can bootstrap a few founders for multiple years.

Personally I know many people in my area and age range (mid 20s Bay Area) who would and could put up $125k to self fund their startup, but not many who would put up $500k, even if they technically could.

Reply


@dannyw 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

In 2020, YC cut the standard deal from 150k to 125k, while still preserving the 7% equity (and the 4% pro rata).

To sell a solution, first create a problem ;)

Reply


@mesozoic 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

How can you get involved with YC as an angel investor?

Reply


@jrochkind1 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

> also pointed out that if founders stay lean, this is more than enough capital to survive for years, regardless of the economic environment.

What does this look like?

I'm thinking 2 people's salary and overhead at say $110K each -- including employer's taxes, healthcare, and all benefits, that's maybe salaries of like $75-85K? Which is of course not a lot of money at all by software engineer standards (or to live near YC HQ), but is that still more than YC means by "lean"?

Because after two years that's $440K, leaving $30K/year for any infrastructure (like, that your software runs on) or marketting, or any other overhead at all.

So, yeah, that's lasting for "years" (2, which is I guess the minimum amount of "for years"), with exactly two founder employees, but it definitely seems very very lean to me.

How do you think YC is thinking about it, about like that, or I guess, even less take-home for the founders? Or is this not supposed to include the founders supporting themselves for those two years, is that not how it works? Or is the assumption they'd have at least a couple hundred thousand of revenue in those years too? Or thinking they will surely get some additional investment? (but that doens't seem to be what "this is more than enough capital to survive for years" suggests).

I'm not saying 500K is "not a lot of money", of course it is!

I'm just saying it's not clear to me how it's enough money to run a business "for years", even "leanly". Just curious how they're thinking about it like that, how I'm thinking about it wrong/different. I figure I don't know what I'm talking about, hoping someone will explain how it works!

Reply


@w22_throwaway 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I'm currently in the W22 batch. There's some heavy skepticism in this thread, so I want to add perspective from someone actually in the current batch (throwaway because we haven't announced our funding yet).

The additional $375k (+$125k OG deal = $500k) that YC is offering is an optional and uncapped SAFE. I think of this as YC being an investor in our next round, except I can receive and deploy the cash now with no premium paid to YC. This is extremely founder friendly, and is in addition to what YC had already agreed to invest in us. The terms on this SAFE are much better than what I could have negotiated on my own, and it comes with zero fundraising effort.

Because of this, I'm able to go into pitch meetings with investors around demo day in March with more leverage – I no longer need capital from them to keep the company moving in the short term. I can also make capital intensive moves I otherwise would have waited to do.

As to whether YC is a value add for us with the dilution it incurs: yes, absolutely. The valuation cap we're raising at has doubled, we have access to a great network of people and companies (this has a real and significant effect), and we were able to convince someone with the YC funding to leave their stable and well paying job to join us.

This is all in the context of a US based developer tools startup that already has a top-tier university signal (Stanford), co-founders with FAANG offers on the table, and a co-founder with years of experience working (but not as a founder) at two startups that were acquired.

I'm sure some others have better fundraising opportunities, but there is a reason many founders like myself still choose to go through YC.

Reply


@jakeinspace 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Could someone who has a better grasp of corporate/securities law explain to me why the following is illegal/impossible: conspiring with an investor to get a small follow-up investment round with an inflated valuation, thus reducing the dilution of the $375k? For example, after the initial $500k from YC, you get your VC buddy to invest $50k at 0.1% for a total valuation of $50M, diluting the $375k to a mere 0.75% stake. This feels fraudulent to me, and there’s probably some language that YC uses to prevent this, but would is this otherwise illegal?

Reply


@didip 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

No more aiming for Ramen Profitable, I see.

Is this forced evolution due to other VCs entering the early stage market?

Reply


@supernova87a 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

More than the specific $ figure or % ownership etc (these are all minor details), what I'm interested in is the "general goal" of YC's approach. What the YC approach is aimed at creating and incentivizing founders to do, and how it might be different from other VCs.

PG himself wrote about the dysfunctions of ("typical") VCs here: http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html i.e. emphasizing and incentivizing growth at all costs, stealing ideas, interfering with intelligent (but slower) management of a company.

I assume that by contrast (if he's writing that), YC must take a different or better approach or philosophy.

Is that true?

edit: I'm being downvoted for asking an important but I guess slightly uncomfortable question?

Reply


@wantsanagent 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Is this an experiment? Is there a set of metrics being tracked which will inform continuation or reconsideration of this plan?

Reply


@new_realist 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

$125,000 for 7% is still exploitative, not even considering the inflation of the money supply we’re seen recently. So much money chasing deals and this term hasn’t budged.

Reply


@mritchie712 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This makes it much easier to get to profitability[0] and never raise again after YC (especially as a SaaS). I wonder how this will impact the decision to raise money after YC.

0 - Including paying the founders a reasonable salary

Reply


@andrewmcwatters 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I've always been casually curious about applying to YC, but I'm allergic to the terms because they are not in plain English.

I'm not interested in learning about SAFEs or cap tables or any of that. I'm interested in running profitable businesses with basic P&L statements and not owing anyone anything.

If you immediately value my business at $1.7 million, I should probably in the next 12 months be making $1.7 million in revenue as a baseline. So how is Y Combinator going to help me do that?

Engineers are expensive. How is Y Combinator going to help me sell my product and grow so I can pay my staff?

Why would I not just take a bet on a PR firm[1] since advertising is a total wash for small businesses?

[1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Edit: I'm very happy for you that you think SAFE and maybe valuation cap, discount (without context), MFN, pro rata, "high resolution fundraising" are basic terms, but for most US citizens they are not, and for non-US citizens even less so.

Y Combinator goes to great lengths to attempt to describe these concepts, at least one of them they introduced and didn't exist anywhere else in fundraising prior, but they go to little to no lengths to explain how they will help you grow your business.

Reply


@ngoel36 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Is it required to take the $375k note? If so, definitely a bad deal for some, and disincentivizes taking on early angels at an attractive cap.

Reply


@rexreed 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

How does a "$375,000 is on an uncapped safe with “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) terms" work when the company doesn't raise a subsequent round? Say, they get acquired or go bust or something else happens?

Reply


@sneak 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

> Dalton Caldwell, YC’s Managing Director, Architect, and long-term Group Partner, who first suggested that now was the right time to make this change, also pointed out that if founders stay lean, this is more than enough capital to survive for years, regardless of the economic environment.

I'm all for being scrappy, but unless the definition of "years" is precisely 24 months, this isn't much money split between 3 or 4 people, unless they're all living in Kansas City or something.

It's my belief that anyone talented enough to start a startup in earnest and be worth investing in has job opportunities worth enough these days that this is almost a ridiculous claim (narrowly escaping being such by use of the term "survive", apparently in earnest).

I am reminded of the jwz nscpdorm disclaimer.

Of course founders earn less in salary than they would get as wages as non-founders, but to think that this is a lot of money to a 3 or 4 person founding team "regardless of the economic environment" in the middle of the highest inflation of my entire life is a little... misleading?

Reply


@divbzero 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Are there considerations to make YC permanently remote? Or does the traditional in-person requirement offer benefits that will be worth reinstating in the future?

Reply


@devops000 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Is it not better to bootstrap a company ?

Reply


@badcede 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I love the comments saying that giving $500k instead of $125k will make things worse. Clearly YC should have made things better instead, by giving less!

Why stop there though? If YC really cared about founders, they'd give them nothing. Better yet, make them pay - now that would have really been helpful! But no. Clearly YC doesn't care about founders and is only trying to exploit them.

YC really ought to stop making things worse for founders like this. I mean how dare they.

Reply


@zuhayeer 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I like that the new terms are backwards compatible with people doing YC now. If you’re currently in YC or just graduated and need some money, it might be worth asking for the $375k note.

Reply


@SubuSS 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Are there terms around how the money is spent / how much founders get paid? Also is there some kind of yc health insurance?

I see mention of 40k/founder/yr - imo that leaves out the huge demographic of folks with kids.

Reply


@throwaway879080 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

awesome, we might consider YC after all

Reply


@sudosteph 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

The entire reason I didn't apply last season was because despite being my startup looking for funding, and despite us having our best traction to date (functional MVP deployed in big retail partner, making sales) - the $125k (minus the cost of uprooting our team and product to CA) was just a bad deal. We've been in talks with some angel groups with 500K being the ask for the pre-seed, and that has been well received. So I think 500K is right on the money for now. It's a good change to see!

Reply


@ignoramous 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

YC has to react to VCs entering early stage investment. Accel in India grants upto $250K to startup founders (no strings attached) [0], while Sequoia seeds select startups with $1M in capital [1]. In India, $250K's roughly worth what ~$4M would be in the US.

Just to put the amount in perspective: Our team of 3 engs in India got a generous $12K grant from Mozilla in June 2020, which has kept lights on our toy project for 2 years now. I think we can stretch that budget to 3.

YC $500K is a total game changer for startups overseas (esp in countries with lower cost of living).

[0] https://atoms.accel.com/

[1] https://surgeahead.com/

Reply


@lvl100 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad deal in 2022? $500K is not much and you’re effectively giving up a big chunk of your equity for reputation and “access”.

Reply


@EGreg 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

We’ve applied to YC for ten years straight with Qbix Inc (https://qbix.com) always filling out our latest progress and achievements…

We always got rejected!! I can share the application, if interested.

Actually, we never wound up raising VC. We did get a bunch of friends and family, and angels, made around a million dollars in revenues, and reinvested it all into the https://github.com/Qbix/Platform - an open source alternative to Facebook et al. Got 10 million users in 95+ countries to download our apps in the stores, translated the apps into 15 languages, and spun out another company called Intercoin.

We’re on the east coast and children of immigrants, so we didn’t have a strong network. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I guess the stuff we’re building (open source, decentralized social platforms) just isn’t exciting for VCs, who would prefer we focus on one application, getting a hockey stick and not giving away the source code. But we wound up “building things people want” and then some… the David Heinemeier Hansson / Basecamp way (anyone remember his lectures about not taking VC?)

PS: Okay, well… NOW it seems funds like Alexis Ohanian’s and Polygon team up and have set aside $200MM for decentralized social networks, which we probably have an 8-10 year head start on everyone else with.

PPS: In 2018 we spun out https://intercoin.org (much better looking site) same approach but in the Web3 space instead of Web2. Once again, people who throw money at NFTs and memecoins all day long wouldn’t give us a dollar. They at least considered us and told us our goals were too big. We still ended up raising over half a million dollars, but from individual angels who care about things like social impact and universal basic income. All the code is at https://github.com/Intercoin

Should we apply to YC again? We like YC, but it doesn’t seem to like us…

Reply


@ramraj07 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This is great news, but is there any special considerations for biotech? I have an idea but the minimum investment for a basic prototype instrument will itself eat up this money!

Reply


@NetOpWibby 13 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Thanks to all the comments here, I just applied.

I'm building a registry[0] and registrar[1] for my portfolio of Handshake[2] names. I have no idea if it'll be interesting to them but it doesn't hurt to try.

Regardless of the outcome, I intend to release by end of Q1 of this year. After the codebases are stable I'm gonna open-source everything. The $500k will just enable me to work on it full-time, eliminate minor debt, and allow me to release faster.

I'm in no rush though.

- [0]: https://twitter.com/Neuenet | https://neuenet.com

- [1]: https://twitter.com/beachfront_

- [2]: https://handshake.org

Reply


@dang 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

A significant part of how YC thinks about this deal has not yet been articulated in the thread. (This is just my personal interpretation, not anything official.)

Some comments are describing $500k as "not much". Most people would gasp at hearing that. Only a tiny slice of humans are a position to think that way—for example, people who have family wealth (or maybe an elite educational credential) to fall back on, or who have already managed to break into the fundraising scene (or maybe a FAANG job) and have gotten used to comparing themselves to all the $multimillion deals they keep hearing about.

A big part of what YC is about is to be a bridge for everybody else to enter this space—no matter who they are or where they live or what demographic they belong to. YC has a long track record, right from the beginning, of funding founders who never would be given a chance by more mainstream institutions [1]. The new YC deal is particularly important for these sorts of founders. Geoff said it in the post, but I haven't seen anyone pick up on this yet:

We also hope that this deal will encourage more founders of any age and from every demographic group and geographic location to take the leap into the startup world.

YC does that because it's in its business interests to do it and because it's good for the world. The idea that those two things go together, and that the way to maximize them is to help founders as much as possible, is in YC's DNA: https://www.ycombinator.com/principles/.

Capital-rich climates notwithstanding, many founders are not necessarily in a position to step out of YC and raise millions right away. Geographic and demographic disadvantages don't suddenly disappear. (And let's not forget the disadvantage of just working on something weird.) Being in YC helps, of course, but all the same imbalances are still in play.

For those founders, YC going from $125k to a $500k deal is a gamechanger because it gives them a lot more runway—more time to build, to grow, and prove what they can do, before stepping back into fundraising. Then they can hopefully raise from a position of strength instead of potentially having to accept less favorable terms.

[1] Me, for example. I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for that, and I could tell a long story about how most investors weren't interested in us even after we got into YC.

Reply


@pyb 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Would YC have to shrink the batches to implement this change?

Reply


@nkotov 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This is such a good change. Fundraising is such a time sink for founders that it takes time away from everything else that matters. I went through YC in S20 and only raised $500k and that helped our team go through without the need for additional funding for almost two years.

Reply


@yaseer 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

YC was a no-brainer value-add for us, even without this deal.

It's still a no-brainer for any founder, regardless of batch size or remote vs in-person. This new deal simply cements that.

Well done to the YC team.

Reply


@devy 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

The amount of money that's flowing into the VC since the pandemic is insane! [1] Thanks to Fed's unlimited QE, investors can borrow almost free cash from the feds and pour them into the VC funds for investments. Great times to be an entrepreneur! However, this reminds me of the dot com bubble years. When is this going to end? A lot scary to think about the consequences if that were to happen...

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29880132

Reply


@hooch 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

wtf is an MFN and why can't you spell it the fuck out

Reply


@soheil 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Will this attract people who try to game the application and the interview process just to get in? Does this in effect force YC to adjust their interview process and possibly make it harder for anyone to get in? I wonder if there are unforeseen side effects beyond just the increased figure.

Reply


@lifeisstillgood 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Going by my memory, when YC started they invested 5K per founder. It was, either by accident or design, focused on 20-somethings eating ramen and dreaming big. You could not do much else on 5K.

There may have been many (myself included) who thought "give up a cushty job, and even if I get in, don't get back much more than the cost of flights to Boston"

Does this signal that its harder to find those young hungry geniuses? Or that other stages of life are now predominating?

I would be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of YC / SV founders ...

Edit: the thing is it breaks my clever idea of A Million Startups. So i had a clever idea a while back, (I think when Softbank wrote off 10BN?). 10BN is about the right amount to fund a million startups. 100K in India, 100K in SE Asia etc etc. You could assume a 50% fail rate at each "stage" and put in 5K to each of a million startups, and then 2.5BN, then 1.5BN etc etc. I am not sure what kicking off a million bright young things would do to the world, but I think it is a worthwhile way to waste 10BN

Reply


@solaarphunk 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

YC is trying to buy more pro rata with this deal, which is what a ton of YC founders complain about in later rounds. This will make things worse.

Reply


@pipnonsense 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

What is the effect of this on Demo Day? Is Demo Day less relevant (since lean companies might just skip it)? Isn't the Demo Day a motivational deadline that adds value to the YC experience, so it reduces the weight of the "acceleration" part of the program?

I don't know those answers, just wondering in the hope that someone from YC comments on that.

Reply


@aksgoel 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

The two safe combo is brilliant win-win for YC and the startup. I wonder if the uncapped MFN safe from YC will set a precedent and encourage startups to ask for more uncapped safes from other investors? And what are the negative effects of this.

I think there YC could create a new safe category and have this as “combo safe”. Portion of the moneys come capped and the rest come uncapped. Will be win win for future safe investors and startups.

Reply


@pyb 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

That looks like an incredibly founder-friendly deal, and such a huge change wrt the current YC offer !

Reply


@clpm4j 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

The W22 batch is only 65 companies? Am I reading/filtering the Startup Directory correctly? This would be a huge reduction from the ~300 companies per batch of late.

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/?batch=W22

Reply


@cedricd 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I'd be curious to see if YC founders, for whatever reason, are able to choose to opt out of the 375.

Overall I think this is a great move, and it's good for founders going through the batch. But they could have reasons to not want to give more equity to YC (maybe have more room in SAFEs for strategic angels, stuff like that).

edit: I originally called 'more equity' pro rata, which is not correct at all.

Reply


@sgt 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Out of interest sake, how much importance does YC place on actually having existing users (not necessarily a lot of revenue, but hundreds of users) as opposed to not? It sounds like a non-brainer question but YC is a bit different than other funds.

Reply


@bufferoverflow 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

What do you do with $500K? It's such a small amount. If you want to hire a single great developer, that amount will buy you his time for a year, maybe two.

Reply


@jpglegal 13 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This is a lot of money, but the way this additional safe works is a bit scary. It takes on the terms of the lowest cap safe or convertible note between "when you're accepted to Y Combinator" and when you raise a priced round. Obviously the $125k Y Combinator safe is issued after you're accepted, so its cap should be one of the options for the MFN cap based on that wording. I believe Y Combinator's $125k for 7% is a post-money cap safe, which means the cap should be $1,785,714.

This is a pretty low cap and a startup is unlikely to raise more seed rounds at an even lower cap than that, though it could happen. So once you raise a priced round, Y Combinator's additional $375k converts into, at best, 21% of your company, or an even higher percentage if you raise additional safes or convertible notes at a lower cap. This means that as long as you raise a priced round or hit a liquidity event, Y Combinator will own 28% of your company or more in exchange for $500,000. It's not a terrible deal, but it's a massive chunk of your company.

To me, if you've already given up 28% of your company long before you've raised $1 million, you're setting yourself up to eventually have the founders' share of equity at mid-to-high single digits by the time your company IPOs or is acquired as a unicorn. You're basically setting yourself up to be like the Box co-founders, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a high-equity founder group like that of Square (34% at IPO despite raising $500 million in equity financing).

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong about the terms here. I'm a lawyer, but not a venture capital lawyer.

Reply


@11thEarlOfMar 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

From YC's perspective, it's protection against dilution at the 2nd round.

Also shows additional confidence in selecting a winning cohort.

Reply


@everhard_ 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

MFN Clause: In a most favored nation (MFN) clause, if subsequent convertible securities are issued to future investors at better terms (e.g., a lower valuation cap), the better terms will automatically apply to the investor's SAFE. This clause falls away on conversion of the SAFE into company stock.

Reply


@sokoloff 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This seems crazy, crazy good for founders (and difficult for many other incubators to match).

Reply


@dqpb 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Is it just me or is $125k for 7% a terrible deal? Is the idea that the networking perks make up for it?

Reply


@lpolovets 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Pretty interesting move. Great for founders raising seed rounds after YC. Great for YC. Not sure if it's as great for founders who want to raise a little at a pre-seed price (e.g. $1m at $10m post) because now there's $375k extra converting at whatever valuation you raise at.

Reply


@pyb 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

BTW, is YC going to open up their early application process this month?

Reply


@arrel 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Didn’t YC already try this with Yuri Milner ten or so years ago? From what I remember they canceled it because it was creating zombie companies, where the founders felt like they couldn’t give up on a bad idea because they still had so much runway.

Reply


@vl 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Inflation?

Reply


@igammarays 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Question for YC: if a solo founder fully intends never to take additional funding after YC, is that considered defrauding YC (or at least a bad faith application)? I thought YC only invests in companies which it expects to go "VC-scale big", i.e. multiple series of follow-on funding to hit $100M+ annual revenue targets and huge teams?

Reply


@0xB31B1B 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Seems like a step in the right direction here. 125k for 7% is still extremely steep in todays market.

Reply


@scottiebarnes 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Can anyone list the 10 IPOs of 2021 that were YC companies?

Reply


@legutierr 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Does anyone know if YC has published a model version of the "uncapped safe with an MFN" mentioned in the blog post?

Reply


@Finbarr 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Very curious to see what kind of pricing pressure this puts on seed investors who traditionally invest after YC. The dynamics seem likely to swing even more in favor of founders.

Reply


@pog92 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

We also hope that this "deal will encourage more founders of any age and from every demographic group and geographic location to take the leap into the startup world."

Guys, after reading the first lines of the blogpost I seriously thought for the first time I could take the leap

Reply


@smashah 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Meanwhile in London founders are expected to take £6k at > 0%

Reply


@daolf 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

So what happens to the $375k if you don't raise after YC?

Let's say you exit 1 year after YC at a $5m valuation

With the MFN, does that mean that YC get 28% of the sale instead of the initial 7%?

Reply


@jayzalowitz 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I hate this.

Can they update the MFN to post YC acceptance date?

If I take early money I now have to give YC a super good deal too.

Incentivizes not raising money before YC.

Reply


@robertlagrant 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

This is a great step forward, particularly for countries with low costs of living. However, here in the UK where costs are reasonably high, I would think it wouldn't give a lot of room for working before needing to re-raise. Are there any good strategies for this?

Reply


@nrmitchi 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

I *think* that this is overall a good thing, but does it not implicitly create a floor for what a future funding round would be able to raise at?

My basic back-of-the-envelope math looks like this makes raising a future round at anything < 5M pretty impractical? This obvious doesn't affect the big-wins from YC (at which point the additional equity from the 375k is likely trivial anyways).

I know that YC (like any VC) is really betting on it's unicorn outliers for it's returns, and this is likely a big win for middle-of-the-pack companies as well, but could easily lead to many "smaller" outcomes being unable to raise and forced to shut down, no?

Reply


@1024core 14 days

Replying to @langitbiru 🎙

Is there a spreadsheet somewhere of all the companies that YC has invested in over the years, and what their current status is?

Reply


About Us

site design / logo © 2022 Box Piper