[staunch]

I absolutely grant that Livingston was crucial to YC's success but it would be wrong to ignore the reality of what holds most people back: lack of opportunity.

The opportunity that Paul Graham gave Jessica Livingston is being massively underplayed here. He would not have chosen to start YC without her but he could have. It very well might've failed without her. That's entirely possible. But she absolutely could not have started YC without him and his money. She would have had no opportunity to become the great success story she has become.

YC partners fund ~3% of the founders that ask them for opportunity. That leaves ~97% of people out in the cold, desperate for the same kind of opportunity that made them successful.

The reason YC funds so few founders used to be their limited resources. Now they have all the resources they could possibly want and they've consciously chosen not to scale. YC has become a VC firm that is perpetuating exactly the problem they were founded to fix. It's an exclusive club for the chosen few and a mark against anyone that is not granted membership. Just like the old elitist VCs they were supposed to replace.

I don't begrudge YC or any of its partners their personal success. I do think YC has gone from being a potentially great force for good to probably a net negative for society.

[dennisgorelik]

> a net negative for society

Where did that come from?

Even if YC is "elitist" now -- that does NOT mean "negative for society".

[omeid2]

I am uncertain of the staunch analysis but I believe they're making the argument that YC gives a massive advantage to startups that are part of it, and staunch believes that the selection process is unfair, so it follows that YC gives unfair advantage which can be reasonably seen as net negative.