4 ms·

You raise an interesting point. PG: Do you find that you're encountering 'stage' creep in YC applications? Are the groups that you're funding (or even just i

You raise an interesting point. PG: Do you find that you're encountering 'stage' creep in YC applications? Are the groups that you're funding (or even just interviewing) steadily becoming more fully developed businesses, or are lots (most?) still in the early/conceptual stages?

pg 16y ago
There's certainly stage creep, or more generally "legit creep." We get a lot more applications from startups with eminent founders, who are profitable or have already raised money, etc. But we are very wary of becoming conservative, so we make a conscious effort to make some risky bets too. The result is that batches end up becoming more and more diverse.
- johnrob 16y ago
  In what way are the 'legit' applicants conservative? Normally that term would imply less risk combined with less reward, but I would think these applications merely offer less risk.
  - jonathanjaeger 16y ago
    True. If notable founders are willing to do Y-Combinator even though they could secure financing elsewhere without giving up a percentage, then there are many cases in which YC should accept (HipMunk, for example). That also speaks volumes of YC, if established entrepreneurs will come back to YC for a second time.
    - alexis 16y ago
      When people ask why they should do YC, I always come back to this example: if Steve (of reddit and now hipmunk) took Y Combinator funding -- with his wealth, connections, and experience -- why wouldn't you?
  - pg 16y ago
    The danger is that they might offer less variability, in both directions.
- malbiniak 16y ago
  I'm struggling to think of an incentive for these more developed startups to apply to YC beyond association with the group in pursuit of larger investments. Have you identified any deeper motivators? You mentioned receiving more applications from this pool. In terms of the application, do you weight in favor of these qualities?
  - pg 16y ago
    I feel a bit awkward being the one to bring this up, but the idea is that we're supposed to give the startups useful advice. The need for that doesn't necessarily go away when e.g. you raise series A. I often give advice to post series A YC startups that they seem to think is useful.
    - brlewis 16y ago
      You had to bring it up because everyone was waiting for someone more qualified than themselves to answer the question.
    - malbiniak 16y ago
      My impressions are made from afar, but it is that YC is a high intensity immersion/sprint for founders to catapult themselves to the next level while having the support of experienced advisors and colleagues in the same situation around them. In other words, help shape and catalyze founders to become great with anything they touch (and recognize what to avoid). Strictly in the context of YC (or TechStars, Excelerate, etc.) it seems like that becomes lost when working with founders at a higher experience level.
      - pg 16y ago
        There are a variety of "next levels" one can catapult oneself to. In the last batch we had one pair of founders who'd previously been CTO and VP of engineering at a public company, and another pair who were 19. It's an interesting question where the limit of our utility is. As I said in another thread recently, I'm pretty sure we don't bump up against it in practice, because once startups raise sufficient money, their investors wouldn't let them do YC even if it would be a net win for them.

pg 16y ago

There's certainly stage creep, or more generally "legit creep." We get a lot more applications from startups with eminent founders, who are profitable or have already raised money, etc. But we are very wary of becoming conservative, so we make a conscious effort to make some risky bets too. The result is that batches end up becoming more and more diverse.

johnrob 16y ago
In what way are the 'legit' applicants conservative? Normally that term would imply less risk combined with less reward, but I would think these applications merely offer less risk.
- jonathanjaeger 16y ago
  True. If notable founders are willing to do Y-Combinator even though they could secure financing elsewhere without giving up a percentage, then there are many cases in which YC should accept (HipMunk, for example). That also speaks volumes of YC, if established entrepreneurs will come back to YC for a second time.
  - alexis 16y ago
    When people ask why they should do YC, I always come back to this example: if Steve (of reddit and now hipmunk) took Y Combinator funding -- with his wealth, connections, and experience -- why wouldn't you?
- pg 16y ago
  The danger is that they might offer less variability, in both directions.
malbiniak 16y ago
I'm struggling to think of an incentive for these more developed startups to apply to YC beyond association with the group in pursuit of larger investments. Have you identified any deeper motivators? You mentioned receiving more applications from this pool. In terms of the application, do you weight in favor of these qualities?
- pg 16y ago
  I feel a bit awkward being the one to bring this up, but the idea is that we're supposed to give the startups useful advice. The need for that doesn't necessarily go away when e.g. you raise series A. I often give advice to post series A YC startups that they seem to think is useful.
  - brlewis 16y ago
    You had to bring it up because everyone was waiting for someone more qualified than themselves to answer the question.
  - malbiniak 16y ago
    My impressions are made from afar, but it is that YC is a high intensity immersion/sprint for founders to catapult themselves to the next level while having the support of experienced advisors and colleagues in the same situation around them. In other words, help shape and catalyze founders to become great with anything they touch (and recognize what to avoid). Strictly in the context of YC (or TechStars, Excelerate, etc.) it seems like that becomes lost when working with founders at a higher experience level.
    - pg 16y ago
      There are a variety of "next levels" one can catapult oneself to. In the last batch we had one pair of founders who'd previously been CTO and VP of engineering at a public company, and another pair who were 19. It's an interesting question where the limit of our utility is. As I said in another thread recently, I'm pretty sure we don't bump up against it in practice, because once startups raise sufficient money, their investors wouldn't let them do YC even if it would be a net win for them.