11 ms·

My experience at a YC startup

217 points by techiedudeblog 13y ago

dylangs1030 13y ago
I'm assuming the author posted this. Thanks for doing so! I love to see inside perspectives on startups, especially Y-Combinator startups. The tech industry has this bad habit of hero-worship and name dropping (well, I guess it's probably every industry). I think it's good to see that the entire process is not as glamorous as it seems, and that just being associated with a huge pool of talent/success/prestige does not guarantee your own success or future prestige. Kudos on the experience and the lesson learned, good luck in finding a job :)
minimaxir 13y ago
The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. I'm not sure I understand this point. Were the founders micromanaging?
- badclient 13y ago
  Also, define micromanaging.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    OT, your username makes this comment hilarious.
- prawn 13y ago
  I know there's a level of micromanagement that will frustrate any employee, but being told what to do is a fairly significant part of employment.
badclient 13y ago
You never told us the other side of the story. Sure, the other side could, but what do you think the other side would say about you? And why should we believe you over them beyond taking your word?
- hvs 13y ago
  That seems like a standard that is not really applied to any other post on HN. Why should it apply in this case?
  - badclient 13y ago
    Most other posts on HN don't involve such degree of mudslinging. When they do, I think you'll find similar questions being asked.
    - jmcgough 13y ago
      I don't really think is is mudslinging. He purposely left out the company's name, and YC as a whole won't be hurt by this - there have been enough YC successes that I'm sure everyone here would consider a YC startup to be better than the average startup. This is just one engineer warning people that you should still take a solid look at a company before you hop on board, even if it is a YC startup.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- anu_gupta 13y ago
  How is he supposed to tell us the "other side of the story"? Are you somehow involved in this? Do you recognise the situation?
  - badclient 13y ago
    Nope.
smalter 13y ago
It sounds like the only thing that YC has to do with this post is that it framed the author's initial perceptions of the company, perhaps in a way that blinded him/her to the truth: every pre-product market fit startup is a mess on the inside. It's a bit counterintuitive, but that's why I actually do the opposite from most founders who are trying to hire: I tell potential hires everything that's horrible about our company--all the reasons why we suck, why we'll fail, etc. It turns out that the candidate that's a good fit really values having that conversation and relishes the opportunity to think through what the problems are and how they can help. It's also extremely differentiating from how most companies hire. I say, if you suck, embrace it.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  I have to ask: do you find you have a lot of applicants who turn away after this conversation? In other words, other factors aside, does this negatively impact your hire/interview ratio?
  - nullspace 13y ago
    It may do that, and when it does it's probably for the better. When you are in a pre-seed startup, things are not rosy, and you want to make sure that your potential hire does not hate being a part of it in a few months. In other words, you want to make sure you hire the kind of person who really wants to join an early stage startup, in spite of all the risks associated with it.
- glaugh 13y ago
  I received that kind of anti-pitch before I joined CrowdFlower back when, and I found it very compelling. It did in fact turn out to be an accurate representation of the cofounders' culture of transparency, too.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  I find that people who can do both; See how they are under performing and share it with others, do better than those who try to put on a brave 'face'. The reality is that we all suck in our own way and we have strengths that we may or may not recognize. But the only way forward is to let go of your ego, embrace the fail, and learn as fast and as durably as you can. A common observation people make about founders of successful companies are that they are really "down to earth" and "approachable." I have come to understand that it is their ability to not let their own ego interfere with listening and learning that makes it possible for them to be successful.
dvt 13y ago
This post seems like a half-truth in itself (with a tinge of sour grapes). Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of self-contradiction. E.g.: "The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice." and "I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea." Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). So, then, were you also guilty of this ad-hoc influence? I'm not sure what to take from this apart from "my pulling was good, their pulling was bad." Also, "The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do." I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Like the other HN'er, I need some clarification here. Were you being micromanaged? (And even that may not be a bad thing..) Let me make a small aside about culture while I'm at it. I don't really buy into this "company culture" bullshit. It seems (to me at least) that it's mostly self-gratifying mental masturbation. Instead of being so obsessed with "culture" -- it's mentioned two or three times in the essay -- why not bring up more substantial issues up? After all, maybe it just wasn't a good fit (but that has nothing to do with culture). That would be like a girlfriend breaking up with me because of my "person culture." It's a meaningless platitude that's thrown around far too much in startup circles.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  You're missing the forest for the trees in this post, and being overly-literal. The author is actually being very clear in his side of the story. >Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). The author was being pulled in many directions, then he wanted to help the founders and the company's direction as a result of being somewhat misinformed. He was trying to solve the lack of direction by pointing them in the direction of their vision. Saying they were being pulled in many directions is kind of like saying they had no direction, so your analysis is baseless. >I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Secondly, it's not the status-quo, or at least, it doesn't have to be. You're being too literal - I think it's clear he means micromanagement and arbitrary instruction without needing to say that, not that he thinks engineers should exist in a utopian state of telepathic productivity where nothing needs to be said to them for them to accomplish their goals.
joelrunyon 13y ago
> YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. It sounds like he made the poor assumption that YC = Success = Millions for everyone involved.
kanja 13y ago
Lying about the numbers is never ok - when you ask people to take on risk for you it's inexcusable to be anything but transparent about what exactly they're taking on. The rest of the issues don't really surprise me, but dishonesty is a doozy.
- techiedudeblog 13y ago
  Agreed! That was my biggest surprise - not lying but half-truths.
  - badclient 13y ago
    I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A Did they tell you that VCs were lining up for Series A? Because when you just say "you got the sense", you say little about what they said and more about how you perceived whatever they said.
    - ricardobeat 13y ago
      They might have said "we are looking into raising a Series A in the following months" or "Guy X is in contact with some of the top VCs in the valley", "we have a lot of interest from VCs", "we are in talks with xxx", etc. None is an affirmative, but they paint a clear scenario in your head.
      - prawn 13y ago
        And quite possible that none of those statements were untrue, either?
  - ry0ohki 13y ago
    Like 100% mom growth was going from 4 users one month to 8 the next?
chasing 13y ago
Due diligence. You'd do it if you were investing money. You should do it if your going to invest your time. Especially if you're taking a big pay cut. In which case you're investing both your time and your money. At least four of the five problems listed near the beginning of the article could've been discovered without leaving the cushy job.
WestCoastJustin 13y ago
I would be amazed if this was not the norm! A cozy job at a top-tier tech company != start-up life (YC or otherwise). Larger companies have a culture, well define pathways for information to flow, you get acclimatized to this, etc. Startups typically have none of these, it is like a culture shock, imaging moving to a different country. ps. no comment on the numbers bit.
badclient 13y ago
Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. Seems like you thought the same about YC: that they'd do the vetting for you. And yet you're set on making the same mistake again by relying on someone else to do the vetting. Almost every start-up is a huge gamble. Naturally, the later stage you join it, the lower the general risk. In that case, why stop at Series A? If risk is all you care about(and it sure sounds like it from your post), why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups? Much lower risk, promise.
- jmduke 13y ago
  why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups? This is important, as people seem to forget that startup is a subset of small business and not vice versa. There are a lot of incredibly profitable businesses with head counts less than two dozen that don't optimize for growth. These are generally companies that have been around for longer than the majority of startups, which means you sacrifice youth for maturity. (A lot of them aren't in Silicon Valley.)
  - pchristensen 13y ago
    Although companies that aren't growing fast aren't hiring much, so those opportunities are harder to find.
    - hayksaakian 13y ago
      Hit the nail on the head A big way those companies stay profitable is by NOT hiring people.
      - count 13y ago
        Depends on the company? We hire tens of thousands of people a year, and are ridiculously profitable.
        GregorStocks 13y ago
jmtame 13y ago
Seems like a pretty common early stage startup to me--they look like sure shots from the outside, but internally everything seems like it's imploding. I remember joining my first startup back in 2007, and even after it received funding by some of the best names in SV, it felt exactly like what you described. If you're looking to join a startup and expect the same experience as a large company, I don't know if you'll find it. It doesn't excuse bad behavior. The CEO at that startup I mentioned was pretty bad (at the time; I'm sure he's better now because he has moved on to bigger and better things) and got fired by the investors a few months after I left. Early stage startups are probably not going to feel much like a normal job, based on what my friends tell me it's like (Google: you can work 30 minutes during the day and you're basically done).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- david_shaw 13y ago
  > Most startups fail. If that's unacceptable to you, stick with Big Co. I agree with your point, but would only like to point out that there is a middle ground between "early stage startup" and "huge corporation." I work for a small company that's been around about thirteen years, is profitable, but only has about twenty employees. I wouldn't want to work for a huge corporation, but there are certainly alternatives to tiny startups and megacorps.
- techiedudeblog 13y ago
  I didn't post here for you to feel sorry. I posted here so other people can learn from my mistakes.
mariusz331 13y ago
There are "doomed" companies in every batch, which is okay. Startup investing is a numbers game. This is a great time for the company the OP is talking about to reflect on possible mistakes they've made. I take what the OP says with grain of salt, but no startup is perfect. This is the time to think about the culture they created and how they can improve it to stay alive. Most of the time, it just takes an honest conversation with the team. Lock yourselves in a room and have an open talk about what's going on. Let no feeling go unspoken. Don't make any excuses- just focus on how you guys can be better in the future and make every effort to do that.
dm8 13y ago
> The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. I wouldn't call it vision problem. Vision is generally very high level. When it comes to actual implementation you need to dig 100 ft deeper into the problem. Moreover, isn't it the case with most of the early stage startups that are yet to hit product market fit? I run my own startup and I get constant feedback form all the stakeholders. Of course, my team makes decisions based on the feedback and insights. But we are constantly evolving as a company and decision making is very quick. In fact, from my interactions and readings even successful companies were like that. For example Google - "Key decisions made in the cafeteria line while a founder is loading his plate with baked organic tofu"[1] [1] Early Google Employee experience: http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so-alike.html http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so-ali...
newnewnew 13y ago
Like it or not, this is an extremely common startup story. You have heard that 90% of startups fail, right? Each failed startup goes through some kind of phase like this. Borderline dishonesty is also common. Every startup is trying to pitch itself in the best light possible, and they all got a hockey stick graph sitting around somewhere no matter how poorly they're doing.
fistofjohnwayne 13y ago
Interesting that so many people are saying, "startups are risky, end of story." What pops out for me is this: "The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs." Just because a company hasn't found product-market fit doesn't mean it's okay to lie when recruiting.
ig1 13y ago
He misses a key point: References You should speak to former coworkers, friends, customers and investors before joining an early stage startup. Don't ask the company for references, but rather use your own network to find these people via mutual contacts and talk to them about the founders and the company.
dustingetz 13y ago
"The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company" #1 reason to not join an early stage startup. either found one yourself, or go learn from a place that pays top dollar for actual experts so you can learn how to be one.
kirillzubovsky 13y ago
Get a grip on yourself! 1) This could have been your experience at ANY startup and YC has nothing to do with this (you are just trolling their name). 2) You said you steered the company in the right direction? That's just a matter of perspective. 3) "The first person to go would be the business guy" - maybe they thought that a whiny child, that you are, was impacting their focus and productivity.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  1) ... YC has nothing to do with this Like it or not, YC signals some sort of vetting (by PG, at the very least). It's a good thing for YC if people give YC companies the benefit of the doubt (it would be worse if people expected the worse or, even worse, decided not to work for those companies) 2) steered the company ... a matter of perspective. He made it clear that it was from a strategy perspective: "steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective." And based on how he explained it, I suspect PG would agree. 3) they thought that a whiny child, that you are There's really no need to sling ad-hominems. Not all startups are perfect. Many have issues, especially cultural issues. To deny it only reflects poorly on you. The issues that the author presents is consistent with stories I've heard from others. It's not that people are bad, but when push comes to shove startup founders are willing to do what it takes to succeed.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    You didn't respond to a single one of the criticisms made. 1. YC startups, on average, are more likely to succeed all other things considered, thus the perception. But YC itself can't guarantee success, are you claiming they should? 2. "Based on how he explained it" .. therein lies the problem. He hasn't given any evidence or provided the company a chance to respond. So effectively, he's targeting the reputation of YC rather than a specific company. 3. The problem isn't that the author is claiming "all" startups have issues, but that he is attributing these issues to YC Startups in particular. Even if this particular story were true, which we have no way of knowing, it seems like a bizarre attempt at schadenfreude against YC.
josh2600 13y ago
This is a risk evaluation failure. When you join a startup, when you think of startup statistics, you should think that the company you're joining has a 90% chance of failing and returning less than $0 (ergo wasting your time in addition to a lack of financial return). With this in mind, joining a startup is not for the faint of heart, and it's also not for those who exemplify hubris. YCombinator is signal. Investing is signal. Intelligent cofounders are signal. They are not surefire guarantees of a great return on investment. Nothing really ever guarantees a return on investment. It seems like basic vetting of a startup just didn't happen. Everyone has a linkedin, is it too much to ask that you do some googling to figure out the accomplishments of the people you're about to invest 10 years with? Yes, when you join a startup you should imagine what doing 10 years with that company could be like. If you can't see yourself there in 2 years, don't even bother (90th percentile advice). Look. I'm all about Venture Capitalism, but you have to ask yourself. If there's no possible way that this business could do what they're trying to do without VC money and they're still on a seed stage, what is your risk? I would argue that your risk is almost incalculable (which is also true of your reward). When you trade security for potential, you can gain or lose liability in exchange for risk. Joining a YC startup is only marginally less likely to fail than joining a regular startup. In short, every startup is a huge gamble and you have to play the game with that in mind. Your experience at a YC startup is no different than countless friends I've had over the years. Go and talk to anyone who has lived in the Valley for more than 10 years, we all know people exactly like you. What happens from here on in matters greatly. Will you let the experience cannibalize your ambition or reinforce your drive? You don't need to join a startup to change the world, and you shouldn't let a failure like this destroy your dreams. If anything you've learned a ton of what not to do next time. In short, be brave, be foolish and do. I applaud the writeup and hope that it becomes fuel for future endeavor.
- md224 13y ago
  Agreed. To assume every YC startup is going to be a beautifully-operated dream company would be to fall prey to a seductive mythology. Tech startups are run by human beings, creatures that can be brilliant, passionate, and level-headed, but also vain, delusional, overconfident, and naive. The best you can do is know what you're getting into.
- 13y ago
argumentum 13y ago
This reads like a hit piece on "YC Startups". I'm not saying it was intended to be so, but it sounds like one. Why? 1. Where is the evidence that any of this is true? 2. You could have named the company in question and given them a chance to respond.. 3. Instead your claim aims to hurt the reputation of hundreds of YC startups. Of course YC startups could fail, whether in raising money or making something people who want. ANY startup could fail. A YC startup may be less likely to fail, but YC doesn't ensure success .. for that matter neither does being a post series-a (webvan, color labs etc) or even being a public company (zynga for example).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
coffeemug 13y ago
I don't know the person or the YC company in question, and I realize I'm nitpicking, but these three things stuck out at me. > I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. Anybody could waste months and months working on the long-term vision and culture. In a startup, that's next to useless as everyone should contribute to the long term vision. It's the day-to-day that's important. > I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. VCs invest in traction. "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me." > The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. That's what an early startup is -- figuring out product/market fit, largely based on ad-hoc decision making like this. Picking a vision that just works is incredibly rare. I know dozens of YC founders and in my experience they're really good at what they do, but you can't expect to stumble on Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Evan Williams by joining a random YC company. There are probably less then a dozen people of this quality in the entire world, and YC invests in ~60 companies per batch for god's sakes! EDIT. And also: > The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. Engineers should be told what to do (but hopefully not how to do it). Being good at engineering doesn't in any way qualify you for being good at managing product. EDIT2: > Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. Of course the nos started piling up. Having a few rejections is nothing, we went through ~60 rejections before raising the first round for our company. Excellence in the absence of pressure wins you no accolades. How you act when the house is burning down is what ultimately defines who you are. It's cool if the guy wanted to leave because this kind of pressure isn't for everyone (and that's fine), but blaming two measly rejections on others is off-putting. It's easy to blame failure on others, much harder to take responsibility for it yourself and help turn a dire situation into a victory.
- greghinch 13y ago
  It definitely feels like much of this post is presented in an overly negative perspective aimed at the startup, when in fact some of this may have come down to the employee not realizing what working for an early stage company entails, namely how haphazard some parts of it may be. It all looked so good when there's a sunny house full of co-eds smoking pot in The Social Network...
proexploit 13y ago
Off topic, but is there a name for that type of pattern in the header? It looks familiar.
wudf 13y ago
>YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. I may be wrong, but I don't think YC aims to only fund companies that will "succeed." Each venture is an exploration into a space. I think "mistake" is a bit presumptuous.
sriramk 13y ago
I have questions about the OP's motivation for writing this but more on that later. The real fault lies with both parties for not setting expectations. A lot of the requests from the founders seem very reasonable; I fully expect them to be telling their friends about this bad hire who never executed on the details for them. Neither of you seem to have done the hard work up front of conveying what you needed and expected from the other side. I can see the other side of the data points you show - weekly revenue need not be the right thing for the company, startups need detail often more often than execution and guess what, VCs do care about the actual idea. It also sounds like you were surprised by the risk profile of an early stage startup (and your notion of VC vetting might be in for a harsh reality check). What I don't understand is this post itself - you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience (not raising funding is the median outcome and even folks like AirBnb struggled with this for a long, long time). I'm wondering whether the way you've constructed this post with an anonymous post on a blog, the callouts to their funding situation, etc is meant to hurt the company's future prospects by making them identifiable (and maybe take a swipe at YC too). I hope that's not the case here.
- oblique63 13y ago
  > you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience Why are so many here thinking this? I didn't even remotely interpret this post like that. If anything, the post seemed to overwhelmingly present your exact same point here: that even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup. He seemed to be more concerned with giving people realistic expectations (like you are) than trying to discredit any of the entities involved. What I don't understand is why people are so quick to attribute malice to this. Clearly there was a communication breakdown, I'm just not entirely sure where... the post felt pretty simple/clear/genuine to me.
  - livepreview 13y ago
    If the author's point was in fact that "even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup," then he shouldn't have mentioned YC because in the context of the now-deleted blog post it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments expressed. If that wasn't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot. Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences you had with co-workers probably isn't a great idea in the long run. Hash it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on.
siong1987 13y ago
Most(probably all) early startups are in chaos. Growth solves all problems. If the startup mentioned in the post had a healthy/steady growth, no one would have complained and the OP would still have stayed with the startup. If you are looking to join a startup, join one that with explosive growth. "Get on a rocket ship.", Eric Schmidt to Sheryl Sandberg[1], early Google. 1: http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-speech-get-on-a-rocketship-whenever-you-get-the-chance-2012-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-spe...
- govindkabra31 13y ago
  he noted in his article, that he checked for that.. startup was growing 100% mom, he was told.
auctiontheory 13y ago
While your advice at the end is good, what precedes it comes across as "I am perfect and always right, and these guys were a bunch of dishonest incompetents." I have a hard time believing that view. At the very least, you did not do a good job of evaluating your future employer, and once in there, you did not do a good job of influencing them to follow your lead (without pissing them off).
300bps 13y ago
Did he delete his tumblr? MIRROR: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2890.4431.0.4632.9.8.0.0.0.0.865.1679.0j1j0j2j6-1.4.0....2...1c.1.24.psy-ab..5.4.1629.pInnjsxsgso&pbx=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&s...
- tkfx 13y ago
  looks like it, thanks for the mirror!
- noname123 13y ago
  Man, dude got exposed. I mean it's easy to extrapolate who the person is, call around, figure out which recent YC startup is laying off people, figure out which biz-dev person they let go, which YC startup is raising money via AngelList. If I was going to do a Yelp-style tell all, I'd definitely shield my identity much better. Instead of giving away where they are raising money and at what round they are failing to raise the money at. The nature of my position and specific's of my work history. I wish the man's identity remains shrouded lest he becomes the next Mr.X from American Airlines.
  - rfnslyr 13y ago
    Tired of these young and fresh idealist developers. Put your big boy boots on, do some fucking work, wait a few years, then develop an opinion. Hope he gets exposed.
andrewcooke 13y ago
anyone got a cache?
- govindkabra31 13y ago
  just posted the text in a comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145
- andyidsinga 13y ago
  here : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://techiedudeblog.tumblr.com/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
advertising 13y ago
Literally read this post and clicked to see what other posts were in his/her blog and it's no longer up.
- advertising 13y ago
  I guess the story doesn't "need to be told"
  - Plough_Jogger 13y ago
    Does anyone have a link or chached?
    - govindkabra31 13y ago
      I had an open tab, just posted the text on this comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145
- govindkabra31 13y ago
  There were no other posts.. this was the first and only post on that site. I had the tab open, posted the text in a comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Plough_Jogger 13y ago
New Link: http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f Edit: Just read the post, here is a tl;dr: I thought joining a YC backed start-up would lead to easy and guaranteed riches. Boy was I wrong.
govindkabra31 13y ago
Here is the original text of the article, since it has been taken down now. My experience at a YC startup This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. Preferably join a startup where you know the people. If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. Ignore marketing pitches by founders. Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Why delete the article? More to the point, why post the article here and then delete it? If you're going to blog, and especially if you're going to share your article about YC on a place like HN, then you should be prepared for whatever feedback you receive. I'm well aware someone has posted a mirror to the original article, and I've read it. I'm just sort of baffled by the deletion in the first place. The article made it to the front page, so clearly a decent number of people liked it. A lot of others didn't, hence, the flurry of critical comments. Either way, the article generated a big response. Was that not the intent?
rdl 13y ago
As a YC founder, I'm really sorry you had such a bad experience with other YC startups. I don't think your experience is generally true of YC companies, though. They vary in so many ways, including those unrelated to success. The biggest problem seems to be communication. None of the things you discovered were inherently enough to make them toxic -- but not learning those things sooner was bad. (I suspect even the best company would have a hard time raising an A in certain markets). The "VCs doing vetting for you" with a Series A has a big cost -- if you're otherwise the same and going into the same job, you get a lot less equity, and on much less favorable terms, after an A. Assuming you're in a position to take the risk, being one of the first employees is ideal, or being an employee in a later stage company which is already knocking it out of the park (if I had to get a job today, I'd be looking at employee 1-5, or going to a place like Tesla or Apple or CloudFlare or whatever, where success is already apparent, and the team is obviously already awesome.) And, manifestly, VCs fund shitty companies at Series A (and later!), too, so it's not even great vetting. Once you "satisfice" on hard location, cash, and stability requirements (which, for many people, especially those who want to startups themselves, can be pretty easily met), probably picking for "how awesome are the founders and how much do they like me" is probably the next thing to optimize for. "How much responsibility and room to grow/learn will I personally have", too. Then just make sure "if the company is super successful, I will be super successful too", and then focus on maximizing the odds of the company being super successful.
justplay 13y ago
the up link of article : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&oq=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.10380j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechi...
livestyle 13y ago
My first impression after reading it was it's a FAKE.
AYBABTME 13y ago
Can't seem to access the page, a cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techiedudeblog.tumblr.com https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techie...
mh- 13y ago
getting a 404 on this story now. here's a readability-google-cache version I preserved: https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi (click readability) edit: oops, looks like someone beat me to this by a couple hours.
npalli 13y ago
If you paraphrase most arguments here, we would end up with a conclusion that a YC-startup is no different from a random startup. There is huge struggle getting product/market fit, things are constantly in motion, rejection by VC's etc. Somehow that doesn't seem right. I'm sure the YC founders would negotiate pretty good terms for themselves (compared to a random startup) just because they are a YC startup. For people who feel the OP is naive etc., what exactly should he have expected (net delta) because it is a YC startup?
jonnycombust 13y ago
Startups are hard and falling apart on the inside. This isn't news. Also, being post Series-A will in NO WAY eliminate many of the issues he talks about (struggling vision, etc). Seems like this guy should stick to the corporate world..
scottydelta 13y ago
The only agreeable part is "The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do."
mkuhn 13y ago
Article can still be found here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.1831j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%... --- My experience at a YC startup ============================= This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: - The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. - The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. - The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. - The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. - The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: - YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. - Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. - Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. - Preferably join a startup where you know the people. - If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. - Ignore marketing pitches by founders. - Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.
himal 13y ago
Not found! The page have been deleted.
andrewlynch 13y ago
Is the link down?
mattwritescode 13y ago
For those of you trying the link and unable to find it I have copied the content from the post: My experience at a YC startup This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: * The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. * The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. * The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. * The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. * The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: * YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. * Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. * Preferably join a startup where you know the people. * If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. * Ignore marketing pitches by founders. * Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.
michaelochurch 13y ago
The VC-funded startup scene is full of frauds: fake startups, fake technology (manual work being sold as high-power machine learning), and promises made with no intention of keeping them. It's a shark's world, not for the faint of heart, and not a good place if you're a bad judge of character (unless you're prepared to learn, painfully, in that arena). I've worked in finance and in the startup world. Ethics in the startup world are a lot worse. Finance has more reach (see 2008) but the people who will completely fuck someone over just to make a nickel are just not as common. Even if you get politically unlucky in finance or otherwise end up being laid off, you'll still get a severance and a decent reference. They'll send you off in a decent way. On the other hand, I've seen startup CEOs ruin peoples' reputations just to do it. OP's complaints have nothing to do with the company being YC, and certainly nothing to do with it being pre-A. The most unethical people I met in the startup scene were the management team of a well-established post-D startup in New York. (The CEO is from an extremely wealthy family and pulls connections to raise money in spite of his own incompetence and the mediocrity of the leadership; otherwise, the company wouldn't exist, but you knew that.) These people have used extortion to settle severance disputes, hired multiple people into the same exact leadership role as an explicitly intentional recruiting tactic, and were so dishonest with investors that they're known for it in New York, which might be why the Series E seems to be a struggle for them. That is in a company that has passed VC vetting four times. YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. Well, fucking duh. No one is a perfect judge of character. No one. You have to make decisions on people based on extremely minimal information that has more to do with someone's charm and social skill than anything deeper. You only know if someone's a good person when they're really tested; you don't see that in a few hours of superficial interaction. On the other hand, if you're not willing to bet on people based on almost no real information, you can't make any deals at all and that's generally considered worse. Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. They're not going to be any better than YC was. Judging character is just fundamentally a hard problem. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. A change of context turned normal people into monsters. Most of these startups do not match the ideal we have of Google's early days: technical to the core, well-managed, etc. The bad news is that about 75% of these VC-funded startups still fail (but you knew that). The ugly news is that at least that percentage deserve to fail. Sorry, man. So, OP drew a dud. It happens. I've drawn two and I'm still alive.

217 points by techiedudeblog 13y ago

I'm assuming the author posted this. Thanks for doing so! I love to see inside perspectives on startups, especially Y-Combinator startups. The tech industry has this bad habit of hero-worship and name dropping (well, I guess it's probably every industry). I think it's good to see that the entire process is not as glamorous as it seems, and that just being associated with a huge pool of talent/success/prestige does not guarantee your own success or future prestige. Kudos on the experience and the lesson learned, good luck in finding a job :)

minimaxir 13y ago

The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. I'm not sure I understand this point. Were the founders micromanaging?

badclient 13y ago
Also, define micromanaging.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  OT, your username makes this comment hilarious.
prawn 13y ago
I know there's a level of micromanagement that will frustrate any employee, but being told what to do is a fairly significant part of employment.

badclient 13y ago

You never told us the other side of the story. Sure, the other side could, but what do you think the other side would say about you? And why should we believe you over them beyond taking your word?

hvs 13y ago
That seems like a standard that is not really applied to any other post on HN. Why should it apply in this case?
- badclient 13y ago
  Most other posts on HN don't involve such degree of mudslinging. When they do, I think you'll find similar questions being asked.
  - jmcgough 13y ago
    I don't really think is is mudslinging. He purposely left out the company's name, and YC as a whole won't be hurt by this - there have been enough YC successes that I'm sure everyone here would consider a YC startup to be better than the average startup. This is just one engineer warning people that you should still take a solid look at a company before you hop on board, even if it is a YC startup.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
anu_gupta 13y ago
How is he supposed to tell us the "other side of the story"? Are you somehow involved in this? Do you recognise the situation?
- badclient 13y ago
  Nope.

smalter 13y ago

It sounds like the only thing that YC has to do with this post is that it framed the author's initial perceptions of the company, perhaps in a way that blinded him/her to the truth: every pre-product market fit startup is a mess on the inside. It's a bit counterintuitive, but that's why I actually do the opposite from most founders who are trying to hire: I tell potential hires everything that's horrible about our company--all the reasons why we suck, why we'll fail, etc. It turns out that the candidate that's a good fit really values having that conversation and relishes the opportunity to think through what the problems are and how they can help. It's also extremely differentiating from how most companies hire. I say, if you suck, embrace it.

dylangs1030 13y ago
I have to ask: do you find you have a lot of applicants who turn away after this conversation? In other words, other factors aside, does this negatively impact your hire/interview ratio?
- nullspace 13y ago
  It may do that, and when it does it's probably for the better. When you are in a pre-seed startup, things are not rosy, and you want to make sure that your potential hire does not hate being a part of it in a few months. In other words, you want to make sure you hire the kind of person who really wants to join an early stage startup, in spite of all the risks associated with it.
glaugh 13y ago
I received that kind of anti-pitch before I joined CrowdFlower back when, and I found it very compelling. It did in fact turn out to be an accurate representation of the cofounders' culture of transparency, too.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I find that people who can do both; See how they are under performing and share it with others, do better than those who try to put on a brave 'face'. The reality is that we all suck in our own way and we have strengths that we may or may not recognize. But the only way forward is to let go of your ego, embrace the fail, and learn as fast and as durably as you can. A common observation people make about founders of successful companies are that they are really "down to earth" and "approachable." I have come to understand that it is their ability to not let their own ego interfere with listening and learning that makes it possible for them to be successful.

dvt 13y ago

This post seems like a half-truth in itself (with a tinge of sour grapes). Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of self-contradiction. E.g.: "The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice." and "I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea." Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). So, then, were you also guilty of this ad-hoc influence? I'm not sure what to take from this apart from "my pulling was good, their pulling was bad." Also, "The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do." I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Like the other HN'er, I need some clarification here. Were you being micromanaged? (And even that may not be a bad thing..) Let me make a small aside about culture while I'm at it. I don't really buy into this "company culture" bullshit. It seems (to me at least) that it's mostly self-gratifying mental masturbation. Instead of being so obsessed with "culture" -- it's mentioned two or three times in the essay -- why not bring up more substantial issues up? After all, maybe it just wasn't a good fit (but that has nothing to do with culture). That would be like a girlfriend breaking up with me because of my "person culture." It's a meaningless platitude that's thrown around far too much in startup circles.

dylangs1030 13y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees in this post, and being overly-literal. The author is actually being very clear in his side of the story. >Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). The author was being pulled in many directions, then he wanted to help the founders and the company's direction as a result of being somewhat misinformed. He was trying to solve the lack of direction by pointing them in the direction of their vision. Saying they were being pulled in many directions is kind of like saying they had no direction, so your analysis is baseless. >I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Secondly, it's not the status-quo, or at least, it doesn't have to be. You're being too literal - I think it's clear he means micromanagement and arbitrary instruction without needing to say that, not that he thinks engineers should exist in a utopian state of telepathic productivity where nothing needs to be said to them for them to accomplish their goals.

joelrunyon 13y ago

> YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. It sounds like he made the poor assumption that YC = Success = Millions for everyone involved.

kanja 13y ago

Lying about the numbers is never ok - when you ask people to take on risk for you it's inexcusable to be anything but transparent about what exactly they're taking on. The rest of the issues don't really surprise me, but dishonesty is a doozy.

techiedudeblog 13y ago
Agreed! That was my biggest surprise - not lying but half-truths.
- badclient 13y ago
  I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A Did they tell you that VCs were lining up for Series A? Because when you just say "you got the sense", you say little about what they said and more about how you perceived whatever they said.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    They might have said "we are looking into raising a Series A in the following months" or "Guy X is in contact with some of the top VCs in the valley", "we have a lot of interest from VCs", "we are in talks with xxx", etc. None is an affirmative, but they paint a clear scenario in your head.
    - prawn 13y ago
      And quite possible that none of those statements were untrue, either?
- ry0ohki 13y ago
  Like 100% mom growth was going from 4 users one month to 8 the next?

chasing 13y ago

Due diligence. You'd do it if you were investing money. You should do it if your going to invest your time. Especially if you're taking a big pay cut. In which case you're investing both your time and your money. At least four of the five problems listed near the beginning of the article could've been discovered without leaving the cushy job.

WestCoastJustin 13y ago

I would be amazed if this was not the norm! A cozy job at a top-tier tech company != start-up life (YC or otherwise). Larger companies have a culture, well define pathways for information to flow, you get acclimatized to this, etc. Startups typically have none of these, it is like a culture shock, imaging moving to a different country. ps. no comment on the numbers bit.

badclient 13y ago

Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. Seems like you thought the same about YC: that they'd do the vetting for you. And yet you're set on making the same mistake again by relying on someone else to do the vetting. Almost every start-up is a huge gamble. Naturally, the later stage you join it, the lower the general risk. In that case, why stop at Series A? If risk is all you care about(and it sure sounds like it from your post), why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups? Much lower risk, promise.

jmduke 13y ago
why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups? This is important, as people seem to forget that startup is a subset of small business and not vice versa. There are a lot of incredibly profitable businesses with head counts less than two dozen that don't optimize for growth. These are generally companies that have been around for longer than the majority of startups, which means you sacrifice youth for maturity. (A lot of them aren't in Silicon Valley.)
- pchristensen 13y ago
  Although companies that aren't growing fast aren't hiring much, so those opportunities are harder to find.
  - hayksaakian 13y ago
    Hit the nail on the head A big way those companies stay profitable is by NOT hiring people.
    - count 13y ago
      Depends on the company? We hire tens of thousands of people a year, and are ridiculously profitable.
      - GregorStocks 13y ago

jmtame 13y ago

Seems like a pretty common early stage startup to me--they look like sure shots from the outside, but internally everything seems like it's imploding. I remember joining my first startup back in 2007, and even after it received funding by some of the best names in SV, it felt exactly like what you described. If you're looking to join a startup and expect the same experience as a large company, I don't know if you'll find it. It doesn't excuse bad behavior. The CEO at that startup I mentioned was pretty bad (at the time; I'm sure he's better now because he has moved on to bigger and better things) and got fired by the investors a few months after I left. Early stage startups are probably not going to feel much like a normal job, based on what my friends tell me it's like (Google: you can work 30 minutes during the day and you're basically done).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

david_shaw 13y ago
> Most startups fail. If that's unacceptable to you, stick with Big Co. I agree with your point, but would only like to point out that there is a middle ground between "early stage startup" and "huge corporation." I work for a small company that's been around about thirteen years, is profitable, but only has about twenty employees. I wouldn't want to work for a huge corporation, but there are certainly alternatives to tiny startups and megacorps.
techiedudeblog 13y ago
I didn't post here for you to feel sorry. I posted here so other people can learn from my mistakes.

mariusz331 13y ago

There are "doomed" companies in every batch, which is okay. Startup investing is a numbers game. This is a great time for the company the OP is talking about to reflect on possible mistakes they've made. I take what the OP says with grain of salt, but no startup is perfect. This is the time to think about the culture they created and how they can improve it to stay alive. Most of the time, it just takes an honest conversation with the team. Lock yourselves in a room and have an open talk about what's going on. Let no feeling go unspoken. Don't make any excuses- just focus on how you guys can be better in the future and make every effort to do that.

dm8 13y ago

> The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. I wouldn't call it vision problem. Vision is generally very high level. When it comes to actual implementation you need to dig 100 ft deeper into the problem. Moreover, isn't it the case with most of the early stage startups that are yet to hit product market fit? I run my own startup and I get constant feedback form all the stakeholders. Of course, my team makes decisions based on the feedback and insights. But we are constantly evolving as a company and decision making is very quick. In fact, from my interactions and readings even successful companies were like that. For example Google - "Key decisions made in the cafeteria line while a founder is loading his plate with baked organic tofu"[1] [1] Early Google Employee experience: http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so-alike.html http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so-ali...

newnewnew 13y ago

Like it or not, this is an extremely common startup story. You have heard that 90% of startups fail, right? Each failed startup goes through some kind of phase like this. Borderline dishonesty is also common. Every startup is trying to pitch itself in the best light possible, and they all got a hockey stick graph sitting around somewhere no matter how poorly they're doing.

fistofjohnwayne 13y ago

Interesting that so many people are saying, "startups are risky, end of story." What pops out for me is this: "The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs." Just because a company hasn't found product-market fit doesn't mean it's okay to lie when recruiting.

ig1 13y ago

He misses a key point: References You should speak to former coworkers, friends, customers and investors before joining an early stage startup. Don't ask the company for references, but rather use your own network to find these people via mutual contacts and talk to them about the founders and the company.

dustingetz 13y ago

"The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company" #1 reason to not join an early stage startup. either found one yourself, or go learn from a place that pays top dollar for actual experts so you can learn how to be one.

kirillzubovsky 13y ago

Get a grip on yourself! 1) This could have been your experience at ANY startup and YC has nothing to do with this (you are just trolling their name). 2) You said you steered the company in the right direction? That's just a matter of perspective. 3) "The first person to go would be the business guy" - maybe they thought that a whiny child, that you are, was impacting their focus and productivity.

nonchalance 13y ago
1) ... YC has nothing to do with this Like it or not, YC signals some sort of vetting (by PG, at the very least). It's a good thing for YC if people give YC companies the benefit of the doubt (it would be worse if people expected the worse or, even worse, decided not to work for those companies) 2) steered the company ... a matter of perspective. He made it clear that it was from a strategy perspective: "steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective." And based on how he explained it, I suspect PG would agree. 3) they thought that a whiny child, that you are There's really no need to sling ad-hominems. Not all startups are perfect. Many have issues, especially cultural issues. To deny it only reflects poorly on you. The issues that the author presents is consistent with stories I've heard from others. It's not that people are bad, but when push comes to shove startup founders are willing to do what it takes to succeed.
- argumentum 13y ago
  You didn't respond to a single one of the criticisms made. 1. YC startups, on average, are more likely to succeed all other things considered, thus the perception. But YC itself can't guarantee success, are you claiming they should? 2. "Based on how he explained it" .. therein lies the problem. He hasn't given any evidence or provided the company a chance to respond. So effectively, he's targeting the reputation of YC rather than a specific company. 3. The problem isn't that the author is claiming "all" startups have issues, but that he is attributing these issues to YC Startups in particular. Even if this particular story were true, which we have no way of knowing, it seems like a bizarre attempt at schadenfreude against YC.

josh2600 13y ago

This is a risk evaluation failure. When you join a startup, when you think of startup statistics, you should think that the company you're joining has a 90% chance of failing and returning less than $0 (ergo wasting your time in addition to a lack of financial return). With this in mind, joining a startup is not for the faint of heart, and it's also not for those who exemplify hubris. YCombinator is signal. Investing is signal. Intelligent cofounders are signal. They are not surefire guarantees of a great return on investment. Nothing really ever guarantees a return on investment. It seems like basic vetting of a startup just didn't happen. Everyone has a linkedin, is it too much to ask that you do some googling to figure out the accomplishments of the people you're about to invest 10 years with? Yes, when you join a startup you should imagine what doing 10 years with that company could be like. If you can't see yourself there in 2 years, don't even bother (90th percentile advice). Look. I'm all about Venture Capitalism, but you have to ask yourself. If there's no possible way that this business could do what they're trying to do without VC money and they're still on a seed stage, what is your risk? I would argue that your risk is almost incalculable (which is also true of your reward). When you trade security for potential, you can gain or lose liability in exchange for risk. Joining a YC startup is only marginally less likely to fail than joining a regular startup. In short, every startup is a huge gamble and you have to play the game with that in mind. Your experience at a YC startup is no different than countless friends I've had over the years. Go and talk to anyone who has lived in the Valley for more than 10 years, we all know people exactly like you. What happens from here on in matters greatly. Will you let the experience cannibalize your ambition or reinforce your drive? You don't need to join a startup to change the world, and you shouldn't let a failure like this destroy your dreams. If anything you've learned a ton of what not to do next time. In short, be brave, be foolish and do. I applaud the writeup and hope that it becomes fuel for future endeavor.

md224 13y ago
Agreed. To assume every YC startup is going to be a beautifully-operated dream company would be to fall prey to a seductive mythology. Tech startups are run by human beings, creatures that can be brilliant, passionate, and level-headed, but also vain, delusional, overconfident, and naive. The best you can do is know what you're getting into.
13y ago

argumentum 13y ago

This reads like a hit piece on "YC Startups". I'm not saying it was intended to be so, but it sounds like one. Why? 1. Where is the evidence that any of this is true? 2. You could have named the company in question and given them a chance to respond.. 3. Instead your claim aims to hurt the reputation of hundreds of YC startups. Of course YC startups could fail, whether in raising money or making something people who want. ANY startup could fail. A YC startup may be less likely to fail, but YC doesn't ensure success .. for that matter neither does being a post series-a (webvan, color labs etc) or even being a public company (zynga for example).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

coffeemug 13y ago

I don't know the person or the YC company in question, and I realize I'm nitpicking, but these three things stuck out at me. > I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. Anybody could waste months and months working on the long-term vision and culture. In a startup, that's next to useless as everyone should contribute to the long term vision. It's the day-to-day that's important. > I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. VCs invest in traction. "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me." > The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. That's what an early startup is -- figuring out product/market fit, largely based on ad-hoc decision making like this. Picking a vision that just works is incredibly rare. I know dozens of YC founders and in my experience they're really good at what they do, but you can't expect to stumble on Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Evan Williams by joining a random YC company. There are probably less then a dozen people of this quality in the entire world, and YC invests in ~60 companies per batch for god's sakes! EDIT. And also: > The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. Engineers should be told what to do (but hopefully not how to do it). Being good at engineering doesn't in any way qualify you for being good at managing product. EDIT2: > Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. Of course the nos started piling up. Having a few rejections is nothing, we went through ~60 rejections before raising the first round for our company. Excellence in the absence of pressure wins you no accolades. How you act when the house is burning down is what ultimately defines who you are. It's cool if the guy wanted to leave because this kind of pressure isn't for everyone (and that's fine), but blaming two measly rejections on others is off-putting. It's easy to blame failure on others, much harder to take responsibility for it yourself and help turn a dire situation into a victory.

greghinch 13y ago
It definitely feels like much of this post is presented in an overly negative perspective aimed at the startup, when in fact some of this may have come down to the employee not realizing what working for an early stage company entails, namely how haphazard some parts of it may be. It all looked so good when there's a sunny house full of co-eds smoking pot in The Social Network...

proexploit 13y ago

Off topic, but is there a name for that type of pattern in the header? It looks familiar.

wudf 13y ago

>YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. I may be wrong, but I don't think YC aims to only fund companies that will "succeed." Each venture is an exploration into a space. I think "mistake" is a bit presumptuous.

sriramk 13y ago

I have questions about the OP's motivation for writing this but more on that later. The real fault lies with both parties for not setting expectations. A lot of the requests from the founders seem very reasonable; I fully expect them to be telling their friends about this bad hire who never executed on the details for them. Neither of you seem to have done the hard work up front of conveying what you needed and expected from the other side. I can see the other side of the data points you show - weekly revenue need not be the right thing for the company, startups need detail often more often than execution and guess what, VCs do care about the actual idea. It also sounds like you were surprised by the risk profile of an early stage startup (and your notion of VC vetting might be in for a harsh reality check). What I don't understand is this post itself - you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience (not raising funding is the median outcome and even folks like AirBnb struggled with this for a long, long time). I'm wondering whether the way you've constructed this post with an anonymous post on a blog, the callouts to their funding situation, etc is meant to hurt the company's future prospects by making them identifiable (and maybe take a swipe at YC too). I hope that's not the case here.

oblique63 13y ago
> you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience Why are so many here thinking this? I didn't even remotely interpret this post like that. If anything, the post seemed to overwhelmingly present your exact same point here: that even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup. He seemed to be more concerned with giving people realistic expectations (like you are) than trying to discredit any of the entities involved. What I don't understand is why people are so quick to attribute malice to this. Clearly there was a communication breakdown, I'm just not entirely sure where... the post felt pretty simple/clear/genuine to me.
- livepreview 13y ago
  If the author's point was in fact that "even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup," then he shouldn't have mentioned YC because in the context of the now-deleted blog post it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments expressed. If that wasn't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot. Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences you had with co-workers probably isn't a great idea in the long run. Hash it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on.

siong1987 13y ago

Most(probably all) early startups are in chaos. Growth solves all problems. If the startup mentioned in the post had a healthy/steady growth, no one would have complained and the OP would still have stayed with the startup. If you are looking to join a startup, join one that with explosive growth. "Get on a rocket ship.", Eric Schmidt to Sheryl Sandberg[1], early Google. 1: http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-speech-get-on-a-rocketship-whenever-you-get-the-chance-2012-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-spe...

govindkabra31 13y ago
he noted in his article, that he checked for that.. startup was growing 100% mom, he was told.

auctiontheory 13y ago

While your advice at the end is good, what precedes it comes across as "I am perfect and always right, and these guys were a bunch of dishonest incompetents." I have a hard time believing that view. At the very least, you did not do a good job of evaluating your future employer, and once in there, you did not do a good job of influencing them to follow your lead (without pissing them off).

300bps 13y ago

Did he delete his tumblr? MIRROR: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2890.4431.0.4632.9.8.0.0.0.0.865.1679.0j1j0j2j6-1.4.0....2...1c.1.24.psy-ab..5.4.1629.pInnjsxsgso&pbx=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&s...

tkfx 13y ago
looks like it, thanks for the mirror!
noname123 13y ago
Man, dude got exposed. I mean it's easy to extrapolate who the person is, call around, figure out which recent YC startup is laying off people, figure out which biz-dev person they let go, which YC startup is raising money via AngelList. If I was going to do a Yelp-style tell all, I'd definitely shield my identity much better. Instead of giving away where they are raising money and at what round they are failing to raise the money at. The nature of my position and specific's of my work history. I wish the man's identity remains shrouded lest he becomes the next Mr.X from American Airlines.
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  Tired of these young and fresh idealist developers. Put your big boy boots on, do some fucking work, wait a few years, then develop an opinion. Hope he gets exposed.

andrewcooke 13y ago

anyone got a cache?

govindkabra31 13y ago
just posted the text in a comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145
andyidsinga 13y ago
here : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://techiedudeblog.tumblr.com/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

advertising 13y ago

Literally read this post and clicked to see what other posts were in his/her blog and it's no longer up.

advertising 13y ago
I guess the story doesn't "need to be told"
- Plough_Jogger 13y ago
  Does anyone have a link or chached?
  - govindkabra31 13y ago
    I had an open tab, just posted the text on this comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145
govindkabra31 13y ago
There were no other posts.. this was the first and only post on that site. I had the tab open, posted the text in a comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Plough_Jogger 13y ago

New Link: http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f Edit: Just read the post, here is a tl;dr: I thought joining a YC backed start-up would lead to easy and guaranteed riches. Boy was I wrong.

govindkabra31 13y ago

Here is the original text of the article, since it has been taken down now. My experience at a YC startup This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. Preferably join a startup where you know the people. If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. Ignore marketing pitches by founders. Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.

jonnathanson 13y ago

Why delete the article? More to the point, why post the article here and then delete it? If you're going to blog, and especially if you're going to share your article about YC on a place like HN, then you should be prepared for whatever feedback you receive. I'm well aware someone has posted a mirror to the original article, and I've read it. I'm just sort of baffled by the deletion in the first place. The article made it to the front page, so clearly a decent number of people liked it. A lot of others didn't, hence, the flurry of critical comments. Either way, the article generated a big response. Was that not the intent?

rdl 13y ago

As a YC founder, I'm really sorry you had such a bad experience with other YC startups. I don't think your experience is generally true of YC companies, though. They vary in so many ways, including those unrelated to success. The biggest problem seems to be communication. None of the things you discovered were inherently enough to make them toxic -- but not learning those things sooner was bad. (I suspect even the best company would have a hard time raising an A in certain markets). The "VCs doing vetting for you" with a Series A has a big cost -- if you're otherwise the same and going into the same job, you get a lot less equity, and on much less favorable terms, after an A. Assuming you're in a position to take the risk, being one of the first employees is ideal, or being an employee in a later stage company which is already knocking it out of the park (if I had to get a job today, I'd be looking at employee 1-5, or going to a place like Tesla or Apple or CloudFlare or whatever, where success is already apparent, and the team is obviously already awesome.) And, manifestly, VCs fund shitty companies at Series A (and later!), too, so it's not even great vetting. Once you "satisfice" on hard location, cash, and stability requirements (which, for many people, especially those who want to startups themselves, can be pretty easily met), probably picking for "how awesome are the founders and how much do they like me" is probably the next thing to optimize for. "How much responsibility and room to grow/learn will I personally have", too. Then just make sure "if the company is super successful, I will be super successful too", and then focus on maximizing the odds of the company being super successful.

justplay 13y ago

the up link of article : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&oq=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.10380j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechi...

livestyle 13y ago

My first impression after reading it was it's a FAKE.

AYBABTME 13y ago

Can't seem to access the page, a cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techiedudeblog.tumblr.com https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techie...

mh- 13y ago

getting a 404 on this story now. here's a readability-google-cache version I preserved: https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi (click readability) edit: oops, looks like someone beat me to this by a couple hours.

npalli 13y ago

If you paraphrase most arguments here, we would end up with a conclusion that a YC-startup is no different from a random startup. There is huge struggle getting product/market fit, things are constantly in motion, rejection by VC's etc. Somehow that doesn't seem right. I'm sure the YC founders would negotiate pretty good terms for themselves (compared to a random startup) just because they are a YC startup. For people who feel the OP is naive etc., what exactly should he have expected (net delta) because it is a YC startup?

jonnycombust 13y ago

Startups are hard and falling apart on the inside. This isn't news. Also, being post Series-A will in NO WAY eliminate many of the issues he talks about (struggling vision, etc). Seems like this guy should stick to the corporate world..

scottydelta 13y ago

The only agreeable part is "The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do."

mkuhn 13y ago

Article can still be found here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.1831j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%... --- My experience at a YC startup ============================= This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: - The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. - The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. - The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. - The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. - The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: - YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. - Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. - Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. - Preferably join a startup where you know the people. - If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. - Ignore marketing pitches by founders. - Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.

himal 13y ago

Not found! The page have been deleted.

andrewlynch 13y ago

Is the link down?

mattwritescode 13y ago

For those of you trying the link and unable to find it I have copied the content from the post: My experience at a YC startup This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things: * The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed. * The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs. * The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice. * The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do. * The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company. One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea. Then another round of raising Series A started. The “nos" started piling up. Our last hope said “no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team. I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don’t want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup: * YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. * Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often. * Preferably join a startup where you know the people. * If you don’t know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision. * Ignore marketing pitches by founders. * Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don’t invest blindly.

michaelochurch 13y ago

The VC-funded startup scene is full of frauds: fake startups, fake technology (manual work being sold as high-power machine learning), and promises made with no intention of keeping them. It's a shark's world, not for the faint of heart, and not a good place if you're a bad judge of character (unless you're prepared to learn, painfully, in that arena). I've worked in finance and in the startup world. Ethics in the startup world are a lot worse. Finance has more reach (see 2008) but the people who will completely fuck someone over just to make a nickel are just not as common. Even if you get politically unlucky in finance or otherwise end up being laid off, you'll still get a severance and a decent reference. They'll send you off in a decent way. On the other hand, I've seen startup CEOs ruin peoples' reputations just to do it. OP's complaints have nothing to do with the company being YC, and certainly nothing to do with it being pre-A. The most unethical people I met in the startup scene were the management team of a well-established post-D startup in New York. (The CEO is from an extremely wealthy family and pulls connections to raise money in spite of his own incompetence and the mediocrity of the leadership; otherwise, the company wouldn't exist, but you knew that.) These people have used extortion to settle severance disputes, hired multiple people into the same exact leadership role as an explicitly intentional recruiting tactic, and were so dishonest with investors that they're known for it in New York, which might be why the Series E seems to be a struggle for them. That is in a company that has passed VC vetting four times. YC doesn’t necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. Well, fucking duh. No one is a perfect judge of character. No one. You have to make decisions on people based on extremely minimal information that has more to do with someone's charm and social skill than anything deeper. You only know if someone's a good person when they're really tested; you don't see that in a few hours of superficial interaction. On the other hand, if you're not willing to bet on people based on almost no real information, you can't make any deals at all and that's generally considered worse. Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you. They're not going to be any better than YC was. Judging character is just fundamentally a hard problem. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. A change of context turned normal people into monsters. Most of these startups do not match the ideal we have of Google's early days: technical to the core, well-managed, etc. The bad news is that about 75% of these VC-funded startups still fail (but you knew that). The ugly news is that at least that percentage deserve to fail. Sorry, man. So, OP drew a dud. It happens. I've drawn two and I'm still alive.