Talking about the shift raises the question of why it used to be the other way. Were VCs bad at picking founders who were honest and/or competent, or were VCs always wrong to mistrust founders?
The VC-funded startup environment prior to YC is so different than what we have today that it's weird to compare. Were VCs bad at picking founders in 2004? Mu!
(I raised, with friends, in 1999, and was senior at a VC-funded startup prior to that).
Most people who comment on Hacker News would not have preferred the status quo ante of YC.
I think it just seems like a bad idea? If you believe in expertise in business, giving someone with little of it a bunch of money seems a recipe for disaster. (And YC showed that in fact it’s not a disaster.)
Taken to its logical conclusion, that idea suggests hiring business experts to start companies from scratch rather than investing in existing startups.
VC’s raised easy money (ZIRP era) and they wanted to deploy fast. Founders told VC’s what they wanted to hear to secure capital.