The YC Summer 2022 Batch(ycombinator.com)
ycombinator.com
The YC Summer 2022 Batch
https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/meet-the-yc-summer-2022-batch/
121 comments
My guess is that about 50% are repeat founders and a majority of the rest are FAANG, Ivy League, or Stanford alums.
(This is a genuine guess, not a knock on YC)
(This is a genuine guess, not a knock on YC)
The truth behind many "self-made" successes: Private school -> Legacy Ivy admission -> Nepotism hire -> Seed capital from family -> Family network -> Personal assistance -> Strong belief they're "self-made"
Credit: https://twitter.com/ethicsinbricks/status/142871171687613645...
Credit: https://twitter.com/ethicsinbricks/status/142871171687613645...
I have absolutely no problem with helping my children get every possible advantage I can muster. My family is an institution and their upbringing, education, personal satisfaction, and financial situation is cared for deeply by the family - parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles.
I will do everything in my power to give my children all of my financial resources when I die (and prevent the state from taking it) and ensure their comfort to the best of my ability.
Those without children cannot understand the bond between parents and children. The thought of them being destitute when I could have prevented it is painful. I will use all of my business and personal connections to help them and have zero qualms about doing so.
Do you know why so many billionaires came from rich families? Because their great grandparents helped their grandparents who helped their parents who helped them. This is not an anti-pattern, this is called good morals, a belief in family, and strong dedication to the next generation.
You should be totally free to die and donate all of your assets to the government or total strangers. I myself will give every possible penny to my children so they can thrive. I pray everyone can make that choice freely and not be coerced into a decision they didn’t want.
I will do everything in my power to give my children all of my financial resources when I die (and prevent the state from taking it) and ensure their comfort to the best of my ability.
Those without children cannot understand the bond between parents and children. The thought of them being destitute when I could have prevented it is painful. I will use all of my business and personal connections to help them and have zero qualms about doing so.
Do you know why so many billionaires came from rich families? Because their great grandparents helped their grandparents who helped their parents who helped them. This is not an anti-pattern, this is called good morals, a belief in family, and strong dedication to the next generation.
You should be totally free to die and donate all of your assets to the government or total strangers. I myself will give every possible penny to my children so they can thrive. I pray everyone can make that choice freely and not be coerced into a decision they didn’t want.
That's fine. Just don't tell everyone that your kid is "self-made." Tell them what you did to help them as you did just now, and that not everyone is so privileged.
So nepotism = good morals?
You pray everyone can make the choice freely and not be coerced into a decision they did not want. Let's pretend that your family is from the USA and has been the beneficiary of slave labor, that without slavery, your family would not have the generational wealth that it has been able to pass onto you. Do you pray for these slaves also and do you also want them to not be coerced into making money for you?
You pray everyone can make the choice freely and not be coerced into a decision they did not want. Let's pretend that your family is from the USA and has been the beneficiary of slave labor, that without slavery, your family would not have the generational wealth that it has been able to pass onto you. Do you pray for these slaves also and do you also want them to not be coerced into making money for you?
Every government on earth since the beginning of time is not without injustice. The Aztecs enslaved and brutally dominated their region which is how the Spanish were able to conquer them - the enemies of the Aztecs joined forces with the Spanish in order to destroy a society they saw as a great evil.
The African slaves themselves were sold to the slavers by African kings, such as in Benin, who profited from the export of their enemies.
Where do you want the self flagellation to end? Injustice has been happening since the beginning of civilization.
The African slaves themselves were sold to the slavers by African kings, such as in Benin, who profited from the export of their enemies.
Where do you want the self flagellation to end? Injustice has been happening since the beginning of civilization.
It can’t be better written!!!
One of my side gigs is a small rental property development. I do it with my mom. She does administration, I fund it from my salary/do actual work when I can. So 2 generations joined forces to help the youngest one. It will take many years to finish, but the benefit is clear: my kids will leave school having rental income equal to average salary in Germany. They will able to stand their ground. I worked shitty jobs when I had no choice for 2,3 and 5€/hour and don’t wish these to anybody.
Alternatively I could buy me a small yacht and do nothing. It is also an alternative.
One of my side gigs is a small rental property development. I do it with my mom. She does administration, I fund it from my salary/do actual work when I can. So 2 generations joined forces to help the youngest one. It will take many years to finish, but the benefit is clear: my kids will leave school having rental income equal to average salary in Germany. They will able to stand their ground. I worked shitty jobs when I had no choice for 2,3 and 5€/hour and don’t wish these to anybody.
Alternatively I could buy me a small yacht and do nothing. It is also an alternative.
Unfortunately squandering your money on fleeting experiences is considered a positive by society, but patiently saving, building assets and businesses, and becoming wealthy is seen as an injustice.
Hopefully property rights continue to be preserved but I worry society is trending towards taking from the productive to waste on those who squander.
Hopefully property rights continue to be preserved but I worry society is trending towards taking from the productive to waste on those who squander.
Yes, family is an institution, and what you describe is beautiful dedication. Also society is an institution, and as they say "it takes a village to raise a child".
44% of Meta employees are women.
51% of Stanford Undergraduates are women.
51% of Harvard Undergraduates are women. MIT is close to that ratio as well.
49% of new businesses in the US in 2021 were started by women.
48%+ all US businesses are owned by women.
51% of Stanford Undergraduates are women.
51% of Harvard Undergraduates are women. MIT is close to that ratio as well.
49% of new businesses in the US in 2021 were started by women.
48%+ all US businesses are owned by women.
Pretty sure that in all those cases 10-20% of software engineers are women and you get 50% because in other jobs (marketing, hr) 80% are women.
You would have a point about discrimination if 50% of applicants had women but e.g. only 15% of those were accepted.
This data is not published but I highly suspect that 15% of applicants included a woman and 15% were funded.
You would have a point about discrimination if 50% of applicants had women but e.g. only 15% of those were accepted.
This data is not published but I highly suspect that 15% of applicants included a woman and 15% were funded.
Can I get a source on this please? In particular I would be curious about what is the breakdown in the % of female engineers and female management in Meta.
50% of the people on the planet are women, but that is a meaningless statistic because we are specifically talking about tech.
Does women include trans people?
My cofounder and I raised (not from YC) on a deck.
The network was what mattered for this, though. A former colleague (an exec at my previous job) is also a venture partner at a credible firm, who introduced me to his network of VCs and to a number of potential cofounders, including the person with whom I am now building this company. And my cofounder's own network is vast, which led to a ton of investor interest and favorable terms.
Again: he made a slide deck and used his network and we started building once we had funding. It doesn't surprise me that YC companies do likewise.
The network was what mattered for this, though. A former colleague (an exec at my previous job) is also a venture partner at a credible firm, who introduced me to his network of VCs and to a number of potential cofounders, including the person with whom I am now building this company. And my cofounder's own network is vast, which led to a ton of investor interest and favorable terms.
Again: he made a slide deck and used his network and we started building once we had funding. It doesn't surprise me that YC companies do likewise.
It's on a deck AND the individuals who present. If you sent someone a slide deck and nothing else, virtually no one is going to raise funding on just that.
YC can afford to take risks and fund people on first impressions, that's their whole thing if you think about it.
My take is that YC can’t afford not to operate that way.
My impression is the Decision Matrix looks like.
On the other hand, there’s no external way to fix low execution.
The other thing is that it is often hard to tell good new ideas from bad new ideas in the context of startups. So idea is often a weak signal.
As the GP argued, everyone has startup ideas.
My impression is the Decision Matrix looks like.
High Low
Execution Execution
Good Maybe No
Idea
Bad Maybe No
Idea
On the other hand, there’s no external way to fix low execution.
The other thing is that it is often hard to tell good new ideas from bad new ideas in the context of startups. So idea is often a weak signal.
As the GP argued, everyone has startup ideas.
How many of the idea-only founders were female?
I may be reading between the lines on something you don't intend, but it seems like this data, in isolation of control variables, could just end up with an incorrect clickbait conclusion that YC is sexist.
For example, someone already made the point that many of these founders who could raise on just an idea were likely on their second go around or prior FANG employees. Most founders have historically been male (not saying this is good - just matter of fact) and only 17% of engineers at Google are female (and I think it goes without saying that YC has a bias towards engineers).
So if YC has an explicit positive bias towards second time founders and FAANG employees, you could easily see what appears to be anti-female bias, but in reality is just positive indexing towards other attributes that historically skewed male. This may or may not be the case, and there probably are instances where there is implicit bias towards non-positive male-associated traits (macho attitude? unwarranted overconfidence?) but this data in isolation doesn't tell us much.
I'm not saying that diversity is bad, or that we shouldn't be looking to increase female representation in the founder community, but we should be careful with understanding cause vs correlation and maintain intellectual honesty when looking at statistics.
For example, someone already made the point that many of these founders who could raise on just an idea were likely on their second go around or prior FANG employees. Most founders have historically been male (not saying this is good - just matter of fact) and only 17% of engineers at Google are female (and I think it goes without saying that YC has a bias towards engineers).
So if YC has an explicit positive bias towards second time founders and FAANG employees, you could easily see what appears to be anti-female bias, but in reality is just positive indexing towards other attributes that historically skewed male. This may or may not be the case, and there probably are instances where there is implicit bias towards non-positive male-associated traits (macho attitude? unwarranted overconfidence?) but this data in isolation doesn't tell us much.
I'm not saying that diversity is bad, or that we shouldn't be looking to increase female representation in the founder community, but we should be careful with understanding cause vs correlation and maintain intellectual honesty when looking at statistics.
It's pretty telling from the replies to this post that people just want to find any excuse they can to pretend the VC boys club doesn't exist.
There are obviously some confounding factors, particularly if the batch of idea-only founders includes a large number of people with previous success in VC-backed startups or FAANG companies.
The best analysis would be to divide up the group into cohorts and compare against expected populations for the groups. (ie, if only 17% of people with FAANG experience are women, I would expect to see >= 17% of FAANG founders who got in on idea-only to be female).
Somehow, I doubt that's the case. Or they'll use the really weaselly language of % of teams with a woman on them, which is what I've seen from most of the big VC firms up to this point.
There are obviously some confounding factors, particularly if the batch of idea-only founders includes a large number of people with previous success in VC-backed startups or FAANG companies.
The best analysis would be to divide up the group into cohorts and compare against expected populations for the groups. (ie, if only 17% of people with FAANG experience are women, I would expect to see >= 17% of FAANG founders who got in on idea-only to be female).
Somehow, I doubt that's the case. Or they'll use the really weaselly language of % of teams with a woman on them, which is what I've seen from most of the big VC firms up to this point.
This is a stat I'd love to see.
Just curious - why do assume a correlation (one way or the other) between these two metrics?
They didn't assume anything. They asked. First you get the data, then you can think about correlation.
Because humans are imperfect and prone to bias.
Not sure what correlation do you expect? Do you think it would higher or lower than founders with some progress?
[deleted]
It’s probably pretty easy to tell with experience.
> For the first time since the Winter 2020 batch, the Summer 2022 batch was in person.
Nice.
> For the Summer 2022 batch, we received 19,000 applications from founders around the world and funded 240.
Acceptance rate of 1.26%. For context, Harvard has a 3.19% [0]
> Demo day
is on September 7th and 8th. [1]
> United States: 140 startups, India: 19 startups, United Kingdom: 11 startups, Israel: 8 startups
Interesting how the country breakup does not represent country GDPs at all. I would expect more from Germany or Japan if it were the case. But it shouldn't surprise people who are familiar with YC and tech startups in general.
Besides Michael's post, which provides some details, I think it would be interesting to hear from YC their view on the upcoming months/years of high uncertainty in geopolitical and economical terms, and how is this going to affect companies that apply for YC, and want to graduate and go build great companies.
[0]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/4/1/admissions-class...
[1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/demoday/faq/
Nice.
> For the Summer 2022 batch, we received 19,000 applications from founders around the world and funded 240.
Acceptance rate of 1.26%. For context, Harvard has a 3.19% [0]
> Demo day
is on September 7th and 8th. [1]
> United States: 140 startups, India: 19 startups, United Kingdom: 11 startups, Israel: 8 startups
Interesting how the country breakup does not represent country GDPs at all. I would expect more from Germany or Japan if it were the case. But it shouldn't surprise people who are familiar with YC and tech startups in general.
Besides Michael's post, which provides some details, I think it would be interesting to hear from YC their view on the upcoming months/years of high uncertainty in geopolitical and economical terms, and how is this going to affect companies that apply for YC, and want to graduate and go build great companies.
[0]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/4/1/admissions-class...
[1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/demoday/faq/
I know a couple people from Germany doing startups - a couple of them told me they don't bother w/ programs like this because they can get a grant from the government, w/o giving out any equity. Or just bootstrap, since their costs are lower, free healthcare, etc.
They tend look for later stage funding (which is when you realize that the power of YC is actually the credentials. Been there!)
They tend look for later stage funding (which is when you realize that the power of YC is actually the credentials. Been there!)
The US also provides such a program: https://seedfund.nsf.gov/
> Or just bootstrap, since their costs are lower, free healthcare, etc.
Germany does not have free healthcare. From the employer side, the employer is responsible for paying 7.5% of employees income. Among numerous other taxes you’ll need to pay for each employee you bring on.
I think a lot of it is probably just the language barrier for YC specifically. Not that German founders don’t speak English, but it’s a whole different ball game trying to fund a startup and hire talent in a country where prospective industry contacts and even employees will need to speak German in order to really feel at home. Not to mention a different regulatory environment. That’s not to say there aren’t accelerators focusing on Germany, because there are. But building such a network when YC is based in the US isn’t an overnight thing.
Whereas in the US/UK it’s really trivial to find support, contacts, and devs from all over the world who are willing to relocate just by nature of the fact that the local native language is one they already know.
> Or just bootstrap, since their costs are lower, free healthcare, etc.
Germany does not have free healthcare. From the employer side, the employer is responsible for paying 7.5% of employees income. Among numerous other taxes you’ll need to pay for each employee you bring on.
I think a lot of it is probably just the language barrier for YC specifically. Not that German founders don’t speak English, but it’s a whole different ball game trying to fund a startup and hire talent in a country where prospective industry contacts and even employees will need to speak German in order to really feel at home. Not to mention a different regulatory environment. That’s not to say there aren’t accelerators focusing on Germany, because there are. But building such a network when YC is based in the US isn’t an overnight thing.
Whereas in the US/UK it’s really trivial to find support, contacts, and devs from all over the world who are willing to relocate just by nature of the fact that the local native language is one they already know.
I don't know anyone that's not from academia that's successfully applied and gotten a seed fund grant as a startup (1-3 people trying to get their first funding).
And articles I've read say a minimum of 80 hours of effort for the application.
I've looked at it and it seems very bureaucratic. I believe there is an entire cottage industry around writing applications.
And articles I've read say a minimum of 80 hours of effort for the application.
I've looked at it and it seems very bureaucratic. I believe there is an entire cottage industry around writing applications.
Germany has low-cost healthcare for the unemployed. I used to pay 80 euro/mo while doing my startup - it's essentially free, compared to the american system
Absolutely no hustling culture in Germany. Getting job at Siemens or BMW or VW group is equal to the great exit for one billion $. And staying there for few decades. Personally I like it safe too.
And the digital culture in general. Fax is still a king, no fertile ground for SaaS. Hardware ideas are cool, but too risky compared to any software venture.
And the digital culture in general. Fax is still a king, no fertile ground for SaaS. Hardware ideas are cool, but too risky compared to any software venture.
All I see is that the representation comes from countries where english is spoken by the majority of adults, not the case for germany, definitely not japan.
The majority of Germans speak English:
https://howwidelyspoken.com/how-widely-spoken-english-german...
Well, mostly West Germans... Good luck finding many 40+ year olds in places like Rostock or Dresden that have more than a few words.
> For the first time since the Winter 2020 batch, the Summer 2022 batch was in person.
Interesting, because on the application page for the next batch this winter it says that it will be fully remote. But maybe they didn't update it yet?
Interesting, because on the application page for the next batch this winter it says that it will be fully remote. But maybe they didn't update it yet?
> 15% of the companies have a woman founder and 9% of the founders are women
The trend continues. I still want to see an objective analysis for why so few female founders make it through the funnel. I haven't found any good stats to see if the overall % of startup founders (regardless of YC participation) is abysmal, if it's the software focus that acts as a filter, if it's the VC focus, or something else entirely.
The trend continues. I still want to see an objective analysis for why so few female founders make it through the funnel. I haven't found any good stats to see if the overall % of startup founders (regardless of YC participation) is abysmal, if it's the software focus that acts as a filter, if it's the VC focus, or something else entirely.
What’s the makeup of the applicant pool?
If the top of the YC funnel is 6% female, we would be asking a different question than if it’s 18% female.
If the top of the YC funnel is 6% female, we would be asking a different question than if it’s 18% female.
I don't think they post that stat every year. In 2015 it was about 12%: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/yc-demographics
But that doesn't really help answer my bigger question, which is why is that number so low?
I did find one stat showing about 20% of US businesses with employees are female-owned, which is itself troubling and leads to more "why?".
But that doesn't really help answer my bigger question, which is why is that number so low?
I did find one stat showing about 20% of US businesses with employees are female-owned, which is itself troubling and leads to more "why?".
Looks like about 20% of comp sci grads in the US are women. Seems like the very simple "why". As for that why... idk probably need to change how kids grow up en-masse. My guess, which probably isn't worth much, is it'll happen slowly, but will probably take a generation or two.
There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.
There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.
Cultural factors consistently swamp genetic explanations for things which aren't obvious morphology and biology.
Consistently is a big word without any proof. After all scientists have found many of gender norm in nearest animals and completely isolated human tribes.
Testosterone is a known causative factor for aggression and risk taking. Men have more testosterone than women.
Another potential difference could be prioritization of work-life balance, which would generally be better at a FAANG company than a startup.
I second this question as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's less female entrepeneurs and business owners in general. Cultural and biological factors are important there.
"2% in Climate, Energy, or Sustainability"
I know YC is not a governmental agency and their main goal is profit, but given all that's going on in the world, would've loved to see a substantially higher number here.
I know YC is not a governmental agency and their main goal is profit, but given all that's going on in the world, would've loved to see a substantially higher number here.
Climate tech doesn't fit the YC model (and tech VC model in general) at all. Projects are too unpredictable and hard to judge. They need many orders of magnitude greater investment to get started than a seed fund can provide. And tech VCs can't really contribute any business expertise in the area.
It's a lot easier to fund a hundred B2B SaaS apps and wait for a handful of them to return 1000x in 5 years.
It's a lot easier to fund a hundred B2B SaaS apps and wait for a handful of them to return 1000x in 5 years.
Not quite accurate, some climate cos getting funded at Seed and preseed by Fifty Years and Lower Carbon. Trick is small number of great teams here, who also see a distinctive advantage to going through YC. YC can’t overcome that without significant effort.
Well said. I imagine a group like Lower Carbon Capital (https://lowercarboncapital.com/) would be better suited to provide expertise.
The difference is basically a spectrum from pure engineering to pure science. At first, pure science is really volatile, where as pure engineering can be a simple matter of talent and funding. Execution risk is much lower on the engineering side. There are many climate related issues that are bound by engineering.
A lot of climate tech is bs unfortunately.
A lot of tech is bs unfortunately. Fixed it for you!
A lot of tech is simple, basically a CRUD app. For instance, there is probably a billion dollar app that will come out in next 10 years that makes performance reviews slightly better (e.g. 15five) or maybe a slightly better chat application (Slack). None of these products relied on technical leaps, just execution and positioning.
> 7% had more than $50k of monthly revenue when accepted
Interesting. What’s the motivation for applying to YC when you’re already on track to make 600k annually? I know bootstrapped startups with 20k in revenue and they often have VCs knocking on their doors
Interesting. What’s the motivation for applying to YC when you’re already on track to make 600k annually? I know bootstrapped startups with 20k in revenue and they often have VCs knocking on their doors
Exposure + validation. It's a desirable credential + guaranteed press and intros to VCs if you want funding. YC is basically like going to an Ivy League school for startups at this point.
YC is a startup accelerator. If you are on track to make 600K but want 6M instead then there's a lot of value in the program.
It would be interesting to track this 7% and see how many of them benefit from YC in tangible ways.
YC is a big-time brand, being a YC company is a powerful stamp of approval for acquiring customers, hiring and raising further investment. Go YC first, then get more interest/better terms from VCs, hire more easily, sell more easily.
The ecosystem. Being able to interact with other founders, the exposure you get, advice & help etc. It's not about the money.
Apparently the increase in valuation from investors post-YC means that the program pays for itself in terms of dilution.
> 19,000 applications from founders around the world and funded 240.
Damn that's a lot of applications to review. Is there any data in terms of quality of applications? Is there a big part of spams/very low quality applications or is everything pretty serious?
Damn that's a lot of applications to review. Is there any data in terms of quality of applications? Is there a big part of spams/very low quality applications or is everything pretty serious?
> 39% in B2B/Enterprise SaaS
Business newbie here. Is B2B a broad type of shovels business (gold rush)? What ratio of B2C/B2B is going to sustain the economy? (not sure what term of unit to measure here). And how about if B2B2B is a lot more than B2B2C?
Business newbie here. Is B2B a broad type of shovels business (gold rush)? What ratio of B2C/B2B is going to sustain the economy? (not sure what term of unit to measure here). And how about if B2B2B is a lot more than B2B2C?
There are a lot of consumer products without scalable tech (e.g., grocery brands, entertainment, fashion, media, etc). Those consumer companies are B2B customers.
So a high B2B/B2C ratio on YC (which funds scalable tech) is probably not indicative of an unsustainable economy.
So a high B2B/B2C ratio on YC (which funds scalable tech) is probably not indicative of an unsustainable economy.
My question is misleading since I quote the YC's %. I mean, generally speaking, not particular to YC. So I think as long as those consumers companies' profit can absorb/buy all of B2B...2C service chain all the way down, it will keep going?
One of the biggest potential boosts to being a YC founder is launching a B2B startup to prior successful YC companies - since even landing a few would make a significant impact both in terms of revenue and easy of future sales.
Putting aside YC, generally speak B2B businesses have a higher survival rate than B2C — which is saying a lot given that sales cycles in B2B tend to be much, much longer.
All that said, in my experience, founders with less experience tend to focus on B2C because by default most people have experience buying consumer products & services, much fewer have significant experience buying business services & products. People tend to focus on what they know.
As for the B2X2Z keep it simple, find a business you’re familiar with, model the business, then model another, etc — the practice in modeling existing business will help you actually understand how to model a business. I would start with something like the Business Model Canvas, though no model is prefect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Model_Canvas
Googling “business model canvas examples” or “business model canvas [a-z]” where a-z is the first letter of a specific existing business or industry will pull up related examples.
Putting aside YC, generally speak B2B businesses have a higher survival rate than B2C — which is saying a lot given that sales cycles in B2B tend to be much, much longer.
All that said, in my experience, founders with less experience tend to focus on B2C because by default most people have experience buying consumer products & services, much fewer have significant experience buying business services & products. People tend to focus on what they know.
As for the B2X2Z keep it simple, find a business you’re familiar with, model the business, then model another, etc — the practice in modeling existing business will help you actually understand how to model a business. I would start with something like the Business Model Canvas, though no model is prefect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Model_Canvas
Googling “business model canvas examples” or “business model canvas [a-z]” where a-z is the first letter of a specific existing business or industry will pull up related examples.
The economic model of YC and VC in general demand you be a billion dollar startup.
It's significantly easier to do that in B2B versus B2C when your target customers have deeper wallets.
It's significantly easier to do that in B2B versus B2C when your target customers have deeper wallets.
Not affiliated with YC, but here are some reasons about why B2B would be more appealing to YC.
YC offers a big competitive advantage to B2B (especially tech B2B) through its network. YC offers a large network of potential customers and early adopters for new or growing B2B businesses. Access to the YC network makes it easier to get a B2B off the ground. Many B2B applicants to YC already have some traction and use YC to help take off. This kind of applicant is obviously attractive to YC because it is low-risk.
Also, with B2B companies, it is much easier to avoid the Achilles Heel of B2C, which is that the cost to acquire a user ends up being higher than the revenue that user generates. Even if there is decent product-market fit, consumers generally have tight budgets. With B2B, one sale can generate thousands in ARR, which makes hiring a sales team to close those deals scalable.
YC offers a big competitive advantage to B2B (especially tech B2B) through its network. YC offers a large network of potential customers and early adopters for new or growing B2B businesses. Access to the YC network makes it easier to get a B2B off the ground. Many B2B applicants to YC already have some traction and use YC to help take off. This kind of applicant is obviously attractive to YC because it is low-risk.
Also, with B2B companies, it is much easier to avoid the Achilles Heel of B2C, which is that the cost to acquire a user ends up being higher than the revenue that user generates. Even if there is decent product-market fit, consumers generally have tight budgets. With B2B, one sale can generate thousands in ARR, which makes hiring a sales team to close those deals scalable.
Clicked through a handful and it's really weird how everyone describes their company in terms of another company.
"Uber but for X", "Fivetran but for X", "Plaid but for X", etc etc.
One described themselves as "Grubhub but for gay sex"? Just bizarre...
Numbers in demographic breakdown don't add up to 100%?
In case they are update, currently listed as:
13% Asian, 3% Black, 6% Hispanic or Latino, 5% Middle Eastern or North African, 8% Multiracial, 15% South Asian, 29% White
— which adds up to be 79% — not 100%.
13% Asian, 3% Black, 6% Hispanic or Latino, 5% Middle Eastern or North African, 8% Multiracial, 15% South Asian, 29% White
— which adds up to be 79% — not 100%.
Not sure if this is what happened here but demographic / ethnicity questions often have a 'prefer not to say' option.
Education is 1%, woah. That's pretty surprising. Anyone with more context on this?
Interesting no mention of the percentage of solo founders.
From reports they heavily weigh against them.
From reports they heavily weigh against them.
Seeing some speculation on here I did a breakdown of founder count for the S22 batch:
Founder count distribution
1 founder - 16 companies - 7%
2 founders - 154 companies - 67.5%
3 founders - 48 companies - 21%
4 founders - 7 companies - 3%
5 founders - 2 companies - 1%
6 founders - 1 company - 0.5%
I'm off by one (228 data points when website lists 227 companies in the batch) but should be "back of a napkin" accurate. Interestingly there are fewer companies with 4+ founders than total solo founders.
Founder count distribution
1 founder - 16 companies - 7%
2 founders - 154 companies - 67.5%
3 founders - 48 companies - 21%
4 founders - 7 companies - 3%
5 founders - 2 companies - 1%
6 founders - 1 company - 0.5%
I'm off by one (228 data points when website lists 227 companies in the batch) but should be "back of a napkin" accurate. Interestingly there are fewer companies with 4+ founders than total solo founders.
Jared Friedman has recently said each batch generally has over 10% solo founders. So, it would be considered a meaningful concern, but certainly not a deal-breaker, especially if the founder is technical.
https://www.ycombinator.com/library/7P-does-yc-fund-solo-fou...
https://www.ycombinator.com/library/7P-does-yc-fund-solo-fou...
Kudos to everyone who got accepted. Tried twice, but considering a third attempt to get in next year.
Curious as to what "PropTech" is exactly.
Curious as to what "PropTech" is exactly.
I'm guessing the YC selection process is fairly robust, and doesn't try to select potential companies to fund based on the demographics of the founders. Their goal should be (and probably is) to make the biggest return on their investment.
The converse selection strategy, i.e. that YC picks groups in order to have a final desired demographic balance, would seem uniquely bad judgement. I can't see them doing something as nonsensical as that.
The converse selection strategy, i.e. that YC picks groups in order to have a final desired demographic balance, would seem uniquely bad judgement. I can't see them doing something as nonsensical as that.
I wish HN had a "Launch" link at the top in which YC companies (and maybe other companies) could do launch posts.
@dang ?
@dang ?
YC companies can do launch posts coordinated through dang AFAIK (which both ensures that there's not to many and that someone tells them if their pitch style isn't going to work for the audience)
30% of the batch moving to the Bay Area is a pretty low rate.
It’s time to start considering a move to a better location. The Bay Area is no longer in style, and San Francisco is a dump, and somehow way too expensive.
It’s time to start considering a move to a better location. The Bay Area is no longer in style, and San Francisco is a dump, and somehow way too expensive.
Where do you suggest?
1) The standard deal gives much more money to startups and so based on what I've see on Crunchbase many startups are simply not raising seed rounds post-YC. So that negates the need to move to a VC hotspot like SF at least in the beginning.
2) COVID has demonstrated that you can make remote work and that a sizeable percentage of employees (especially in IT sector) will only accept a remote role. Many startups simply won't have offices or headquarters at all.
3) As was pointed out by Jason Calcanis last week a lot of the people who publicly told the world they were leaving SF for Texas, Florida etc have been quietly moving back. Despite all of SF's many problems there isn't anywhere else that can replicate the critical mass of talent and network that it provides.
2) COVID has demonstrated that you can make remote work and that a sizeable percentage of employees (especially in IT sector) will only accept a remote role. Many startups simply won't have offices or headquarters at all.
3) As was pointed out by Jason Calcanis last week a lot of the people who publicly told the world they were leaving SF for Texas, Florida etc have been quietly moving back. Despite all of SF's many problems there isn't anywhere else that can replicate the critical mass of talent and network that it provides.
Reminds me of a quote I saw earlier this year in Bloomberg about wall street companies moving to Florida:
“The main problem with moving to Florida is that you have to live in Florida.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-10/wall-stre...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-10/wall-stre...
[deleted]
To spell it out further:
The SFBA is a great place to live if you have money. And as long as business continues to revolve around people who have money, the Bay Area will remain a perfectly valid place to do business.
---
I don't think its even about the "tech talent" for most start-up projects, as you can certainly source this remotely to an adequate level to meet the early needs of a startup.
As long as the whales are here, it will make sense to have a fishing boat.
The SFBA is a great place to live if you have money. And as long as business continues to revolve around people who have money, the Bay Area will remain a perfectly valid place to do business.
---
I don't think its even about the "tech talent" for most start-up projects, as you can certainly source this remotely to an adequate level to meet the early needs of a startup.
As long as the whales are here, it will make sense to have a fishing boat.
I would argue moving would require moving the VC industry as well, but if anyone can do it, YC would be the one to get it done.
Having said that, it's going to be a real challenge - SV's prominence is quite massive and long-held. Founders would need this new location to offer similar benefits in terms of talent, investor access, etc. to make it worth their while.
I would love to hear more details about this lot. A billion+ people on the planet (including most of this forum I bet) have "killer" startup ideas and swear they can successfully execute on them with some money. How exactly does YC judge their merit and fund them without as much as a working prototype? Do you look at past history of successful launches? Education/work pedigree? Personality? It's pretty wild that such founders make up almost half of the batch.