I'm a founder who left San Francisco in December for East Africa to start a startup that operates in emerging markets. We believe that one of our core advantages is that potential competitors lack the technical and design chops, and access to talent, mentorship, and capital that comes from having worked in SF's startup scene. Once we stand up operations in-market, we plan on opening headquarters in the US, where we will build the core tech and fundraise. One founder would focus on in-market office while the other would be in the US office. SF is our current first choice for the US office, because of the talent, expertise and capital. Nowhere has built more companies we admire. We think that we would build a much better company by surrounding ourselves with founders and early employees of from amazing companies. So far, they have consistently given among the best advice.<p>Yet many of the folks we talk with who have had to deal with the rising cost of talent in SF (primarily VCs and veteran founders) warn us against the brutally competitive and expensive market out here. We want to build a world class tech company and the plurality of them come from the Bay because of the ecosystem. Of course, it's possible to build world-class tech companies outside of the Bay. But the track record suggests that it's significantly harder. The quality of the talent in SF is unparalleled. But so is the cost.<p>Other founders considering SF must have faced a similar decision. Is there something uniquely valuable about the SF ecosystem that justifies the cost, even if you aren't inventing cutting edge technology? What variables did you consider? What conditions make it more or less worthwhile?