> 43% of the batch were accepted with only an idea
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
All our ancestries contain victims, mine too. Albeit it is of difficult personal digestion, focusing on that might not deliver the best life experience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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!)
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
> 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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
How is this an unrelated controversy and the parent comment is not?
If the the question is whether a company should not locate themselves in Austin because of SB 8 is permitted, so too should the observation that prospective employees can readily circumvent the law with a day trip to Denver.
> How often are persons who self-identify as having the capacity for pregnancy having abortions that a two hour flight to Denver won't do?
Iirc, anyone who knowingly assists this person in getting to Denver for the abortion is exposing themselves to criminal liability via the “community” whistleblower laws.
“Texas is front and center in the abortion rights battle, drawing attention last year for a new whistleblower-type law (SB 8) that lets an individual sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion and receive a $10,000 reward.”
> Why would you tell your Uber driver you're traveling to have an abortion? Probably TMI even without SB 8.
So an Uber driver would be the only person who could aid or assist someone getting to Denver from Texas?
I think your point is very myopic here.
More realistic examples are:
- friend or family driving someone to the airport
- friend or family paying for flight or donating miles
- friend or family successfully assisting in searching for flight (tough to prove, but still illegal, and certain text messages with detailed suggestions could be damning evidence)
- family or friend making lodging arrangements in Denver (with hotel, Airbnb, friend, etc.)
- family or friend going with woman to Denver to help the woman with anything
- family or friend sending encouragement messages like “hang in there” or “my thoughts and prayers are with you”
- family or friend providing child care or pet care while woman is in Denver
So, sure, technically this can be done without telling anyone involved, but it socially isolates the woman who is probably in a vulnerable spot. I think that is the goal of this legislation.
“Hey Mom, I’m going to Denver for a few days just cuz. Could you please watch my pets and my house for a few days? Also, please don’t ask why I’m breaking down in tears all the time…”
And that conversation assumes no financial assistance is needed for travel, lodging, or procedure.
It is hassle for women, more so for poor women who might not have money laying around for flights and hotels. It is also the signal it sends about who thinks you should have no choice. Republicans were probably on their way to taking the house before Roe was struck down. Its the one issue for some that overrides other considerations.
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.