[arciini]

I personally also strictly disagree with their feedback: "try many small things, experiment, tinker, and build a portfolio of multiple income streams".

This is very much the indie-hacker route, but honestly, if you have one thing that's working out, it's usually better financially (though maybe less fun if you like purely doing engineering/product work) to try to grow it than to build a portfolio.

As someone who went through YC, but started out more on the indie-hacker side, I want to mention that going through YC in particular does not close the door to just continuing to build a successful, growing business without raising one round after the other.

I think some indie-hacker influencers encourage this kind of us vs. them thinking about VC's, and the truth is somewhere in between.

I know of many businesses who have decided (either by choice or through a lack of fundraising options) that the ideal way to grow and scale their business after YC is to not fundraise. It's something that YC partners explicitly acknowledge. They understand that an alive business can continue to grow, whereas a dead business is just dead.

[WA]

Exactly this. And the irony is that he himself follows the very same standard playbook: play around, do several "small bets" and then go all in on the most successful one. But he sells you the idea that you need to be your own VC and have multiple income streams.

His other projects are mostly dead by now and my bet is that he won’t have another one ever. He’ll probably save a lot of money from his course, put it in an ETF and call it "see I diversified my income" lol.

[mylons]

i don’t think you understand his point at all. tinker until you find that thing. maybe keep tinkering after. a single source of income is very fragile.