This article is rather thin on numbers or tangible benefits that actually developed because of joining YC as a "later stage" company. I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made that joining YC late is a good thing, I just don't think this essay does that.<p>Descriptions of how YC is more pleasant as a late-stage company are not surprising. Of course it would be, but did YOU derive that much benefit that you couldn't have achieved on your own?<p>Could the team not have derived the same benefit by simply holding up for 3 months on their own, and getting their investors/board to be actively involved during that time as a sounding board?<p>The only real benefit I see being expounded is the connections YC offers for securing a series A. However, I'm skeptical that a solid business with pre-existing good connections (via their current investors and board) couldn't secure a reasonable series A without sacrificing 7% of their company. Simple arithmetic dictates that YC's value-prop needs to be amazing to justify sacrificing 7% in exchange for a more optimal series A.
Possibly slight off-topic grumbling... I automatically disengage when reading a post where the opening paragraph is just a high-five killing-it startup pitch. I understand we all gotta hustle, but it seems like the majority of posts by startups are just done for recruiting or to call attention to themselves. I click the links to get some good information, but wind up feeling like I'm being sold a vacation time-share (with the opportunity to work at the startup! :-)<p>> Applications for YC’s Winter 2016 batch are closing soon, and that has the team at WayUp (formerly Campus Job) feeling pretty nostalgic. During YC, the company grew faster than ever, we hit the crazy goals we set for ourselves, and we closed our Series A around Demo Day, bringing our total fundraising to $9.1M. And on top of all the traction, our team of 8 had a ton of fun.
Meh, I disagree. 7% of equity can net some top talent, and I don't think any VC can claim to match what 7% worth of talent can bring. This is of course, only true if money isn't an issue, and for a later stage company, money won't be an issue. Instead, equity is the scarcer resource, and selling 7% of it for a measly 120k should be an absolute negative signal to future investors.
> Soon after launch, we thought we were “doing great” — we’d raised $1M in VC funding pre-launch, we had a team of 5, we had ~$12k/month in revenue (with a 100% take-rate), and we had tens of thousands of users.<p>In the context of the post's headline, I expected to see more than a five person company with about enough monthly revenue to maybe cover payroll for a mid-level developer in the Bay Area.<p>This really doesn't seem "too far along" for anything early-stage.
I get that YC makes sense for larger companies, but also am curious as to why YC is so inflexible on the terms of the investment. Capital is obviously not a constraint for YC, so why doesn't the fund just put up more money for the 7% for larger companies? One guess I have is that it makes it introduces friction and makes YC much less scalable, but also would attract more large startups.
I don't think it's wise to give YC the "standard" 7% when you are ahead of most other applicants.
I don't know if they did it or not, but I would have negotiated the % before accepting.
Does YC actually take 7% regardless of company stage?<p>There's no way YC owns 7% of Quora, for example, and I thought they would follow a similar model to attract larger companies?
This advice is obviously correct, but it is kind of like stating that you're never too rich to apply to Harvard.<p>What I mean is that obviously YC is a structured program that is very, very well-connected, and unlocks vast, unlimited potential for any company. Anyone given this opportunity gets huge benefits from it, even the people - companies - who are starting with the most advantages.