[version_five]

Congratulations!

I've been thinking about this a bit, even for a company as renowned as YC, I don't like how the power balance is, and the sort of "we made it!" vibe as if you finally impressed some diety enough to grace you with good fortune. I see the same kind of posts (oddly) about people who tried n times to get a job at google and finally they "made it". Like what are we doing?

I think that once an institution has this kind of getting in as the goal, rather than the actual hard work of making an objectively successful company, incentive structures get all screwed up. This is in no way specific to YC, the same happens in universities, in investment banking, whatever. But it signals the beginning of a hollowing out where the credential is everything and what underlies it doesn't matter. There are definitely areas where the culture is skewed very much in this direction, and it isn't somewhere I'd want to be

[andrewguenther]

I think part of it is that the incentives have changed. A lot of people don't see Google as "I've made it" they see it as "great, I can work anywhere I want after this." I think we're starting to see that in YC as well: "I'm in the YC network now." It isn't about the business you get in with, it's that you, as a founder, are now part of the YC network and the opportunities that opens for you as an individual rather than what it means for your business.

My read of the post wasn't that they so desperately needed YC's approval to think that their business could be a success, it's that they just wanted to be in YC.

[bentlegen]

I think one of the brilliant things YC (and PG) have done is propagate “being a founder” as occupying an elite career/employment category beyond anything else. Like, there’s an under appreciated level of category building that YC is responsible for (and the success of their founders hasn’t hurt).

[As_You_Wish]

I don't understand this. Anyone can "be a founder." All you have to do is go down to the Department of Finance, file for a business and fictitious business name, and voila, you're a founder.

Or, does "founder" mean something different? Does it mean that you start a company AND bring a company to $100 million revenue minimum or something? If that's the case, that's kinda weird to me, but ok boomers, er, sorry, millenials. But, if it means that anyone is a founder by signing a piece of paper and paying $25 at the county office, then color me unimpressed.

So can anyone enlighten me about what the specific definition of a founder is? Is it something different, some other nuance or definition? I don't know, I'm confused. Someone, help a brother out.

[vgel]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3479042 popped up on HN a few years ago and explains the idea well.

[bentlegen]

The YC badge is part of what distinguishes "everyday small business owners" and "credible tech founders®". This is part of what YC is selling; a credential that identifies you as being a tech founder worthy of respect in the Bay Area.

(I don't personally put a ton of stock in this credential, but the reality is the tech world does.)

[As_You_Wish]

oh, so a "founder" is not a founder. A "founder" is only one that is blessed by YC, and nobody else is a founder of a company unless it is through YC?

If someone goes through some other incubator or program, it doesn't count? Like, you could get an MBA from Harvard, PhD is astrophysics from MIT, win the Nobel Prize at 18 years old, start a company and make $800 billion dollars, and you still won't be a "credible tech founder®"? I'm just trying to understand this here. YC is the only font of "credible tech founderhood®"?

[bentlegen]

I think if you have all those things your title becomes “living genius” — no one will care about the founder part.

[vadym909]

Unfortunately, It's a human weakness to look for 'formulaic' answers to solve for life's most difficult problems. If successful people came from Ivy Leagues, it became de rigueur that getting into an Ivy League sets you up for success. Then it was Big 4 Consulting, then it was working for FANGs, now it is Founder at a YC company.

Not saying that YC is bad, but it would be nice if getting in was easier. Maybe they should make half their seats competitive and the other half as paid ($500K) just like private schools do. Then leave it up to people's imagination how someone got in. Or maybe they should just let everyone in.

[bruce511]

Well they can't let everyone in because they have finite attention to give, and one of the reasons to be in YC is for their attention.

They also presumably have finite money, so giving money to everyone is clearly untenable.

YC is a brand, letting everyone in would dilute that brand. Letting people pay to get in would dilute that brand.

They act as a first-level-filter. Having made it into YC goes on your resume Because you passed that filter. The VC network values you more Because you passed that filter.

In other words YC as they are, are specifically working as designed. Changing that removes their value.

[hammock]

>I don't like how the power balance is, and the sort of "we made it!" vibe as if you finally impressed some diety enough to grace you with good fortune. I see the same kind of posts (oddly) about people who tried n times to get a job at google and finally they "made it". Like what are we doing?

Totally. It might be more fun to look at it as “we finally suckered them” (choose a less controversial word than suckered).

A similar dynamic shows up in the way startup founders are so eager to say “we’ve been acquired” rather than saying they sold a company