[jjoonathan]

I don't think there are many who would seriously suggest that YC/PG have bad intentions but survivor bias can have exactly the same effect.

So can a "big picture" view: a 90% probability of failure might not seem nearly so bad to someone who can hedge by investing (not necessarily just $) in hundreds of companies. Expectation maximization is much more appealing when you have enough trials to get one of them off the ground. Whereas a founder "starting from 0" might reasonably prefer a ~maximin approach. Neither objective is wrong or corrupt, but advice that suits one and not the other might as well be.

PG and everyone in YC know this and I'm sure they all make honest efforts to work around the tension, but we should be realistic about the fact that tension exists.

[robrenaud]

It seems rational for entrants in a YC class to all invest in each other, to hedge the failure risk. Why doesn't everyone in a given YC class (say, of 100 people) agree to give 10% of their company to a holding company, in response for 1% ownership of that holding company?

[fizx]

Everyone might have to be an accredited investor, which the majority would not qualify for. Another potential problem is that companies want to keep their cap tables minimal for regulatory reasons. Also, how does the 10% vote in board decisions?

Also, what if some companies held out. So now 80% of the YC companies are in this hedge fund. Wouldn't the most successful companies disproportionately come from the 20%--the ones who had enough confidence to reject the deal? Would the smart people in the 80% then defect as well, bringing the cabal down to 60%?

[tacon]

Founder Institute has something like that model. I haven't heard of any breakout successes from them yet.

http://fi.co/