Just finished reading Zero to One for a second-time, and it was interesting to see that Peter Thiel's contrarian approach to investing in startups ("What valuable company is nobody building") is very similar to PG's thesis that "all good ideas look like bad ideas to begin with (black swan investing) [0]<p>It will be even more interesting to see if their combined insights and approach can increase their chances of identifying these rare black swans.<p>Regardless, this has to be among the most formidable grouping of startup talent and brains in the valley.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html</a>
The world would benefit much more from him starting a worthy alternative to YC. Few others are in a position to do so. He probably thinks there would be no profit in competing against what he sees as YC's monopoly.
"the founders of those companies will generally tell you he has been their best source"<p>Honest question: if a company receives investment from Peter Thiel, do the founders have any choice but to express the opinion above?
The idea that a startup's end game should be to "build a monopoly" is one of the most profound insights in Thiel's excellent book, <i>Zero to One.</i><p>This move just deepens YC's monopoly in its domain, as sama would say, "in the Peter Thiel sense."
I hope Peter encourages start-ups in longevity and nootropics.<p>Or just nootropics. If there's more smart people then additional anti-ageing tech will follow—since all arguments against said tech are fallacious; even if they seem reasonable prima facie!
"Peter won’t invest in any companies while they’re in YC or for 3 months after they present at Demo Day (this will apply to Peter’s investment entities as well), which should eliminate any unfair advantage."<p>I wonder if having Peter as an investor is a strong enough incentive that if they knew he liked them, a company would change their behavior for the 3 months after demo day.
Thiel's addition makes YC into a monopoly of sorts. Which is inline with Thiel's philosophy.<p>I wonder how much of that thinking was involved in the decision making on both sides.
While I found Thiel's recent work (Zero to One) to be extremely interesting, I am skeptical about a fair portion of it. I am much more inclined to agree with the claims in PG's startup essays, which seem to have been the cornerstone principles of YC.<p>Am I to that assume all of YC is adopting Thiel's beliefs as well? To be clear, I'm not saying both views are mutually exclusive.
This addition iconifies the way the Valley's power structure has been changing over the last few years.<p>Substantially more (reputation wise) powerful now than 5 years ago:<p>- Peter Thiel (and Founders Fund)<p>- Y Combinator<p>- Joe Lonsdale<p>- Keith Rabois<p>And that whole crew. The PayPal mafia (and @sama) are the new tier one.
Oh, Hi Peter! So how would you solve mortality? <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9149186" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9149186</a>
Not bad. As long as you don't also bring Andreessen. I can't forgive him for what he did to Oculus. Could you bring Mark Cuban on board, too? That would be great.
And so the YC behemoth grows. Congrats, I look forward to being lectured many times about needing secrets and monopolies.<p>And focusing not on being the first product to market, but the last.<p>Did I miss any Thiel-isms?
I can't help but think how this reflects on YC's previous words in regard to diversity in the tech industry. The obvious snark involves the word "myth" or expanding YC's diversity to include people on record as opposing it, but my intent is not to express snark. No surprise when money trumps the need for explanation. I guess being a billionaire means never having to say you're sorry.<p>Good luck.
Peter Thiel is a political extremist, and I don't like a lot of his views at all. My point of view is that this is bad for YCombinator, and that this is a bit of a shame.