Hi! I still remember how nervous I was submitting my YC application 6 years ago. Now that I get to read them, happy to answer any last minute questions you have. AMA!
Hey Aaron,
If you've previous applied and got at least to a video interview. Can it work against you if you've slightly changed your answer to 'Describe your company...' and 'What will your company make'?
> If you've previous applied and got at least to a video interview.
Is a video interview a new thing? I thought it was just 1) Apply (with a pre-recorded video explaining your startup) 2) In-person at the YC office. Is there a step 1.5 now too?
Hey Aaron, we applied last batch and got an in person interview! Do you have any advice on how to get back there? (we have better numbers and a better product)
If someone on the admissions team happened to look at your earlier application, sure, but that doesn't get considered. We just look at finished applications when making decisions.
What's the best stage of startup for applying to YC - when you have a product in mind and still chalking out the plan, working on Product Market Fit (not building it yet)? when you have a working prototype? when you already have some traction? any of above?
This is a great question. We take companies at all different stages, from ideas through those who are already in market with customers.
The "right stage" is more a question of how long you've been working than an absolute state. The more you can get done in a given amount of time, the better.
> The more you can get done in a given amount of time, the better.
Time meaning calendar days or person hours? E.g. if you're comparing a two cofounder startup with a three cofounder startup, where they've each been working full time for a year, do you care more about absolute progress after a year or about progress normalized to the number of person hours?
Obviously after you invest the main metric that matters is progress per calendar day, since that's what affects your IRR. But if a startup hasn't taken external funding then there is a more interesting discussion to be had about the relative meaningfulness of each, how their importance might be shifting over time, etc.
We don't have an exact formula. When I look at an application, I try to figure out how much time is being spent on the co and work off of that.
Obviously it's different for full time vs. part time and many vs. few. However, if an idea has been sitting around in halfway space for years, I'm going to want to know why.
Hi Aaron, please tell what docs are needed at the YC office (we're optimistic!) if there is no legal entity yet? In other words, how should I prove the thing is really ours? Is it actually bad that we aren't incorporated? We didn't hurry with this, because we are outside of the US and we know about the need to convert a legal entity into a US one.
It's fine that you aren't incorporated yet, and I'm glad you waited! Many applicants have not formed a legal entity when they apply. If you are accepted in the S17 batch, we will help you incorporate in the US.
If you've applied early, will the (updated) application be checked again after the deadline, or are the chances that it's been looked at already and already evaluated?
If one has submitted early (by clicking on the button by accident), could it be that enough reviewers already looked over the application and evaluated it already before the official deadline?
Similar to talking VC, there is no guarantee. But unless you have a truley secret sauce going on, ideas by themselves rarely matter.
People have a tendency to overestimate ideas. They are remarkable easy to come up with. I have been in brainstorming session, where we would come up with at least 10-12 really good ideas within an hour. Usually it is execution that matters at the end, as you don't know what it works or what it doesn't.
Tested ideas that move the needle a lot on the other hand are valuable: Eg. We tried to get sign ups doing X, but we failed, but then when we did Y and Z and added these two features we saw a huge increase in signups and retention. -- That's direct learnings from the field, and it is both expensive and somewhat valuable.
I agree with the premise that ideas themselves are worthless.
But what's questionable is whether YC acts in favour of the new applicants that share their insights honestly, or whether they are more prone to protect their investment in the already funded startup (by providing them with details/intel).
We do our best to prevent information sharing to competing companies. Partners who see applications don't disclose the details of those applications to companies that might be competitive.
There is always a chance, though, that an alum who is reviewing applications might see a competing company. While we try to prevent this from happening, we can't be 100% sure. We're pretty careful with which alums are included in the review process, though, and we trust those alums to skip applications that might be competitive rather than trying to gain from reading it.
I am feeling a little worried of our changes while applying to YC. I remember reading that YC looks for companies with can grow up to 10BN.
While we think we can definitely grow upwards of 1 Billion which is what VC firms usually look up too. After 1 Billion is gonna depend a lot on being able to lower the cost of the product enough to increase volume
How hard is this rule? What if the company cannot reach that 10 Billions in Revenue in the future is that a weighted heavily on the application?
It's pretty much impossible to figure out if a company is a $1B or $10B company when reading an application. We use this as more of a thought experiment than anything else.
When I read an application, I force myself to imagine a world in which this idea + team could create a really big company. If that's true, than I'm interested. If not, I'm less likely to want to go further.
Would emails from prospective enterprise customers be viewed favorably (in lieu of LOI)? We're working with these firms for concept testing - solution is in development.
This may not be something you can answer, but I'm curious as to the scoring methodology and how teams get invited to interviews (or not) behind the scenes.
Is there a rating system? A binary yes/no that needs to be seconded by enough reviewers?
There is a rating system. It works in two tiers. The first set of grades is given by a set of alum reviewers. That puts anywhere from 3-10 votes on an application.
The ones with enough passing votes then get reviewed by partners. We then vote on every application between 2-5 times, and stack rank the results. We invite the top ~450 to interviews.
Hi Aaron, I vaguely remember PG saying that while he was reviewing YC applications he would recognize applicants from their HN contributions. People he liked reading would get a boost.
Did I dream it? Is that still the case that if people like my HN posts, I may get special attention to my application?
I wouldn't think too much about it. While I look at referrals when they exist, they don't change my mind one way or the other. The rest of the application is way more important.
Hi Aaron, I'm about to submit our application for cosum, a mobile marketplace that lets people use coworking spaces worldwide on demand per hour instead of months. So basically we're changing the unit from a month to an hour (AWS > Server > Minute) so people pay their actual usage. We lower the price for consumers, increase their flexibility and increase the revenue of spaces by using their resources smarter.
I introduced this model at my own coworking space and it's a huge success. The idea to make this model available on a worldwide mobile marketplace is only 2 weeks old and I started working with 3 of my members on it. As they are all freelancers, they can't just start with something full-time without funding. So I created a prototype/milestone deal with them, paying a little out of my pocket now and more when I raise money + possibility to become co-founders. No shares etc. have been discussed yet. How would you put this in the application? And one more question: We don't have a demo yet, shall I include a possible link for it or is there a way of updating you guys. I'm confident we can show progress in the next days. Thanks!
Just describe what you're doing and how your team is split as you do here. I'd also want to know what the milestones are, and what that means in terms of pay and equity for the team members.
Thanks! Will do. I understand we're very early, but in one week we'll be a little bit less early and I think we can launch a closed beta before April 24. Proof of concept on the consumer side has happened, so I wanna focus on convincing spaces in the next days. How can I update you and the other partners on our process?
For the question "What will your company make?" do you recommend that startups focus on explaining what they've already built, or on what they will build out in the future? Thanks!
Having not went through YC (yet!) I'm curious as to how much the Startup School MOOC will mirror the core process?
I imagine YC is more like going from 0.5 to 1--focusing on one or two things such as product or marketing--rather than the 0 to 1 where everything is covered like was done in Sam's How to Start a Startup course at Stanford?
91 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadDoes it look bad if we have 4 founders ?
Thank you, Channa
Is a video interview a new thing? I thought it was just 1) Apply (with a pre-recorded video explaining your startup) 2) In-person at the YC office. Is there a step 1.5 now too?
Thank you!
[1] confusing, not very good
The "right stage" is more a question of how long you've been working than an absolute state. The more you can get done in a given amount of time, the better.
Time meaning calendar days or person hours? E.g. if you're comparing a two cofounder startup with a three cofounder startup, where they've each been working full time for a year, do you care more about absolute progress after a year or about progress normalized to the number of person hours?
Obviously after you invest the main metric that matters is progress per calendar day, since that's what affects your IRR. But if a startup hasn't taken external funding then there is a more interesting discussion to be had about the relative meaningfulness of each, how their importance might be shifting over time, etc.
Obviously it's different for full time vs. part time and many vs. few. However, if an idea has been sitting around in halfway space for years, I'm going to want to know why.
At what stage would a company like Dropbox (or any other successful YC graduate) benefit the most from going through the YC program?
(And I realize this varies depending on the industry or the founders' backgrounds)
People have a tendency to overestimate ideas. They are remarkable easy to come up with. I have been in brainstorming session, where we would come up with at least 10-12 really good ideas within an hour. Usually it is execution that matters at the end, as you don't know what it works or what it doesn't.
Tested ideas that move the needle a lot on the other hand are valuable: Eg. We tried to get sign ups doing X, but we failed, but then when we did Y and Z and added these two features we saw a huge increase in signups and retention. -- That's direct learnings from the field, and it is both expensive and somewhat valuable.
But what's questionable is whether YC acts in favour of the new applicants that share their insights honestly, or whether they are more prone to protect their investment in the already funded startup (by providing them with details/intel).
There is always a chance, though, that an alum who is reviewing applications might see a competing company. While we try to prevent this from happening, we can't be 100% sure. We're pretty careful with which alums are included in the review process, though, and we trust those alums to skip applications that might be competitive rather than trying to gain from reading it.
While we think we can definitely grow upwards of 1 Billion which is what VC firms usually look up too. After 1 Billion is gonna depend a lot on being able to lower the cost of the product enough to increase volume
How hard is this rule? What if the company cannot reach that 10 Billions in Revenue in the future is that a weighted heavily on the application?
When I read an application, I force myself to imagine a world in which this idea + team could create a really big company. If that's true, than I'm interested. If not, I'm less likely to want to go further.
Is there a rating system? A binary yes/no that needs to be seconded by enough reviewers?
The ones with enough passing votes then get reviewed by partners. We then vote on every application between 2-5 times, and stack rank the results. We invite the top ~450 to interviews.
Something that a lot of applications get wrong and kills their chances early on.
Is it the core values? Is it the networks, what would you say makes YC unique?
Did I dream it? Is that still the case that if people like my HN posts, I may get special attention to my application?
If you cannot state a number can you at least qualitatively tell us whether having a referral is a huge boost or a slight advantage?
I introduced this model at my own coworking space and it's a huge success. The idea to make this model available on a worldwide mobile marketplace is only 2 weeks old and I started working with 3 of my members on it. As they are all freelancers, they can't just start with something full-time without funding. So I created a prototype/milestone deal with them, paying a little out of my pocket now and more when I raise money + possibility to become co-founders. No shares etc. have been discussed yet. How would you put this in the application? And one more question: We don't have a demo yet, shall I include a possible link for it or is there a way of updating you guys. I'm confident we can show progress in the next days. Thanks!
I imagine YC is more like going from 0.5 to 1--focusing on one or two things such as product or marketing--rather than the 0 to 1 where everything is covered like was done in Sam's How to Start a Startup course at Stanford?