Agree, as someone that's applied to YC multiple times in the past, I've decided that I will not be applying because I increasingly feel that there's a disconnect between YC's orginal purpose and what it's become.
Do you mind elaborating on what that change of purpose? As a two-time alum and now a partner my goal is to preserve YC's goal of supporting early stage founders. How do you think our goal has changed and what thoughts do you have on reversing that change?
Thanks for asking, it's a few things, most of which are most likely a bias on my part.
(1) YC has a bias against solo founders; research shows this is not a signal of future success and to me it feels like I'm giving up 17-53.5% of a venture just to get in; YC gets 7% of any venture it funds and YC requires a cofounder have at least 10% equity, but suggest going 50/50.
(2) I personally don't agree with YC doing R&D and feel like this is YC admitting the yield it's getting from backing startups is under performing it doing its own thing, which to me is not a good signal.
(3) Majority of YC's billion dollar startups have all gone through a single VC; why not just deal with them directly?
(4) YC should focus on enabling mentors to expand it's deal flow.
(5) YC should have campus within 60-miles of the Bay Area with free housing, food, super-speed internet, etc. so startups don't have to spend the funds on commodities like this and are able to focus on growing. Free healthcare for a year for founders would be impressive too.
(7) I'm opinionated, largely do startups to learn, not be the next billionaire; personally, done more startups than 99% of founders, do it full-time, and have spent 15-mins plus mentoring 1000s of founders.
(8) YC should set the precedent for making the Bay Area not be the center of the universe for startups.
Surely with those numbers, YC doesn't give you anything and never would? You have all the experience. You've mentored so many founders that surely at least a couple can set up access to VCs. Why even bother applying in the first place?
While if someone asked, I would likely disclose my startup experience, generally speaking I leave it off standard requests for information like YC's app; more interested in being judge on the matter at hand than my past.
My guess is that my pitches might be too off the wall or they have a bias against anonymous users. Or more likely, my pitch is not a good fit for YC. Who knows, as anyone that applies knows, they do not say why they decline to interview a given founder or fund them, and no one really should expect a reason for why either, that simply is unreasonable.
As for why I would apply, I am positive that I would get more value out of it than what they are taking, that I would provide a return on their investment, I love doing startups, and enjoy being around talented founders. Most of all, given I would be taking on funding, it would force me to change the way I normally fund & run startups; that being I normal do not have the objective of selling the startup or being a multi billion dollar company.
As for VCs, while I do not have anything against them and believe they provide value based on a well defined situation, I prefer to focus on doing startups, not building businesses; meaning all of my startups make money while I am working on them, when I am done, I move on to the next startup, since I value my time more than the money I would make finding a buyer, dealing with all the due diligence requests, and supporting the handoff too.
1) the batch sizes might have something to do with it i.e. larger batch sizes don't foster the same community feel as smaller ones. I think maybe ~20 might be the sweet spot.
2) Current leaders don't have as much of a "visionary/thoughtleader/mentor" feel that pg used to. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be super nice and relatable, but don't give off the same vibe of wisdom/hard core technical skills.