Also worth checking out Patrick's tweet storm following his tweet about this new resource -> <a href="https://twitter.com/patio11/status/909800194509758464" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/patio11/status/909800194509758464</a>
Since the guide is partly focused on the YC application process, I have one thought (potentially misconception) that I would like others to weigh in on. For context : I'm working on a Disqus alternative with a focus on privacy, so no ads, no tracking scripts ( <a href="https://www.indiehackers.com/@ploggingdev/building-my-first-saas-a-disqus-alternative---the-research-baa806bdfd" rel="nofollow">https://www.indiehackers.com/@ploggingdev/building-my-first-...</a> ). I started working on it a little over two weeks ago and am a few days away from launching. So by the application deadline, I would have only onboarded beta users. Being a single founder who has been working on a product for less than 3 weeks, even if I follow all the advice and craft a well written YC application, I just don't see why YC would consider funding me instead of the numerous other applicants with serious revenue and something that might resemble product-market fit. In other words, I think when talking about crafting a YC application, it's important to discuss that there exists a certain baseline above which such guides really make sense. Sure, I could apply the actionable advice to my application, but will it move the needle at all when I'm a single founder with an MVP? On the other hand the only impressive part about the application might be that I built it in under 3 weeks and onboarded beta users. Thoughts?
Great writeup, though I have to be completely honest here and say that I love Patrick's writeups for independent hackers, makers, micropreneurs, bootstrappers etc. His writings and practical case studies gave me the power, as a nobody, to make tens of thousands of dollars in order to be more with my wife and child, while doing the work I love. I kind of miss those essays.
I'm a VC, and this list is great. At a high level, VCs care about three things: team, product/idea, and market. Every VC cares about all of these things, but their prioritizations vary.<p>Most of Patrick's excellent advice can be lumped into these three buckets. Specifically:<p>1) You have to establish the credibility of the team: you've done impressive things before; you have a deep understanding of what you're working on now; you can read your audience and know how to communicate effectively; you can get a strong intro (nice-to-have); etc.<p>2) You have to establish the viability of the market: it's big; it has a real problem; the existing competitors are not doing a good job in a clear way; etc.<p>3) You have to establish the quality of the idea/product: you have a unique insight or approach relative to competitors; the prototype/early validation is strong; etc.<p>A lot of the pitches become mediocre when founders are handwavy in one or more of these areas. For example, if the founder spends a lot of time talking about the market and the product idea, but not enough time explaining why the team is uniquely/extremely qualified to succeed. Or the founder has good answers to product/team/market questions, but their answers show they don't know how to read the audience or explain their idea. (Example of not reading the audience: the investor is non-technical and the founder, who is productizing their PhD thesis, spends 90% of the pitch geeking out about technical details.)<p>Also, I'll add a few tips:<p>- Don't exaggerate or mislead. An investor will pass if they doubt one of your statements ("silverware is a $150 billion dollar market!") or realize that you're spinning facts (e.g. you say Dropbox is a customer, but later it turns out you meant that one of your free users has an @dropbox.com email). If it turns out that one statement you made is false, then investors will assume there might be more.<p>- Understanding risks is better than sweeping them under the rug. If your competitor landscape is missing key companies (mentioned in Patrick's post) or you dismiss some $1b+ company as a competitor without any rationale, your audience will become very skeptical. Admitting something is a problem and explaining how you will address is it much more compelling.<p>- Really know the ins and outs of everything about your company -- at least relative to the audience. If I ask a question or make a product suggestion that the founder hasn't considered, that's a yellow flag. Someone who has been living and breathing their startup for several months should have a much, much deeper knowledge of their domain than an investor who is hearing about it for the first time.
The OP is from Stripe, and their Stripe Atlas program seems to want to have a startup pay $500 and, thus, have Stripe get the startup a Delaware C-corporation.<p>Good grief: Why would a startup, prior to equity funding, want to be a Delaware C-corporation instead of just an LLC?
> Do not cite gross merchandise volume (GMV) as revenue; if you facilitate a transaction between two parties and collect a fee then the total transaction is GMV but only your cut is revenue.<p>I thought revenue was a "protected" term, like how it's described in the books. In that case isn't GMV the same as revenue? Since that's the money you actually invoice. And your cut is "net revenue", profit or something instead.
Great stuff!<p>It isn't mindblowing, but insightful enough to take a look. "Focus on nascent greatness" is particularly a great section, because tries to solve some misconception about bizplan and ideas