I was in YC >5 years ago when batches were in person and in the large-two-digit range. The experience of YC is completely different. The class sizes are in the hundreds and many times I've spoken to founders who didn't know another company in their batch existed.
It's a highly optimized assembly line for getting a company to give a 1 minute pitch. They said they'd never do remote, for good reason, then (understandably) flipped when the pandemic happened. But the downsides of remote didn't disappear when covid appeared...
This doesn't mean that founders don't love YC or that it's not worth it. It doesn't mean that parts of YC haven't gotten better over time. Again, highly optimized. It doesn't mean YC isn't a huge boon to your company's reputation.
But if you're looking for small, focused mentorship then YC is no longer the same place.
You can, but when you're making that much above what a series A or B company pays, it's not a useful number. Having multiple offers that are comparable is what matters. A company can go ±5% but it's not like they offer you $180k and you give them your $800k Facebook total comp then they're like, "oh, I guess we'll give you $800k then."
> I also talked to a few fintech companies. I entered the discussions with pre-existing biases that these places are stressfull, not innovative but well paying. The conversations confirmed these biases (except the salaries, which were lower than I expected).
That's interesting. I wonder which companies these are?
I agree. We tried using TripleByte for hiring but what they screen for and what matters are entirely different. A founder we knew got an angry missive from one of the TripleByte founders because they’d rejected candidates during a final culture screen. Apparently the only qualification should be whether the candidate can do contrived coding tests and programming jeopardy, but whether you actually want to work with them is beside the point!
> Apparently the only qualification should be whether the candidate can do contrived coding tests and programming jeopardy, but whether you actually want to work with them is beside the point!
Yeah, different companies want different things and are ok with different things. My best experiences have been with companies that have taken less than 2 weeks to hire me with no testing whatsoever: just a couple of calls. Other companies want and only select for the contrived coding tests and programming jeopardy, and that's fine, but I want nothing to do with them at all.
Maybe even allowing 3rd parties to bet on specific hiring decisions (in addition to what is described in the link) could add another layer of incentivized feedback loops to the process (esp if the people making the hire/fire before 3 months are made known) and add another layer of market driven signals for them to pay attentions to. Maybe make it more expensive to chase certain types that are in higher demand, and less expensive to chase others types that are in low demand (not the salary to the employee, just the payment for filtering). Maybe less expensive for shorter refund windows, and more expensive for longer refund windows.
I have had this exact experience with Triplebyte both as an engineer and as a hiring manager.
I simply do not care about things like, “what does malloc return”. I do not care what people know about bloom filters in Postgres. The 99.99% of web developers don’t have to know these things. I do not care if you can implement Tic-Tac-Toe.
It’s poor interviewing, which is the entire product they’ve been offering.
> When I started at Stripe, I asked to delay my start date until after a family vacation, but my manager just told me to start sooner and take time off later (Stripe was just shy of 100 employees and moving incredibly quickly). I now had an artificial deadline of one month to ship my first project.
That’s a reasonably sized red flag. Asking someone to miss a family vacation so they can go after some arbitrary deadline?
Author here: to be clear, I asked if it was OK to start later after the family vacation, but my manager said I could just start earlier and take the family vacation as a large amount of PTO. There wasn't anything malicious there.
Wait I read that as they start earlier, and take the time off as planned, later. Only because the exact same thing happened to me, maybe it's ambiguous?
For what it's worth, when I joined Stripe (a bit closer to 400), I told my manager that I had a 2-week vacation after my first week of work, and they were totally fine with it! I suspect this is more of a "setting expectations early" and the cost of making a change
If there was a fundraising event in between, this was a generous offer. The strike price on those options could've gone way up. I'm not sure if that's the case here but I've heard it happen at other fast growing startups.
What IP was stolen? The idea of running code from a web editor? The _button placement_?
There’s nothing here that says he’s stolen code or any IP. The CEO doesn’t even claim that he’s stolen real IP. Everything that’s similar is public knowledge and the burden of proof is to point out what’s been stolen.
Which the CEO could! Because the work was open sourced. So he could reply and say, “hey, you implemented this part in a way that is in code you worked on. It’s also a pretty atypical solution to this problem, so it seems reasonable that you took that from us.”
He doesn’t.
Instead, he gets insecure that a kid implemented a similar product in a couple days and decides to rail on him, then offer a half-apology well after it has blown up.
Many VCs, founders, and DNI leaders have echoed that All Raise is primarily a way for VCs to improve their personal brand around women in tech. They don't make investments, don't run substantial programs, and spend much of their time/money on PR.
If these VCs were serious, they would commit X% of investments or X% of investment dollars to the groups they publicly support in panel after panel after tweet after TechCrunch interview.
What is frustrating about these investors (and YC) is that it all is very surface level. I'm sure they believe they are doing the right thing but all of their assumptions, ideas, pipelines, and teams, all are informed by those biases. And there isn't enough being done to deconstruct that. For example, what does it mean to say 'too early' to an under-represented founder? who is the comparison to? How many of your last X investments or team members came from Stanford or ex-FAANG?
Let's put in place processes, time allocations, smaller programs. And let's put all of this in place first for those raising their first rounds - the angel or the mythical pre-seed.
Curious why would VC ever agree to do that unless it was mandated in the prospectus of the fund and the LPs were onboard. VCs serve the LPs not the general public.
