Sure, perceptions differ, especially from different points of view. People at YC put a ton of effort into what I've described. Is a lot more needed? Of course. They'd be the first to agree with you about that. That doesn't mean the efforts to date aren't worth anything, though; let's not fall into being binary about this. Nor does it change the point about the differential impact of a $500k deal, for those who do get funded and don't have external resources to fall back on.
> But for most in the US, it seems like YC funds only [etc.].
That's far from accurate, and I don't think it's very helpful to say "for most in the US". Surely only a small minority in the US have even heard of YC.
> That's far from accurate, and I don't think it's very helpful to say "for most in the US". Surely only a small minority in the US have even heard of YC.
I read the parent's statement as (brackets are mine), "But for most in the US [startup community], it seems like YC funds only safe SAAS startups, often by founders who were ex-FAANG (or ex-prominent YC startups), who are often white, and often MIT/Stanford."
They do [0], for each batch. Not quite at the level of granularity where you can reduce scope from everything they fund to just look at US founders, but the general trend appears towards increased diversity, and it looks like that's a YC goal as well.
Those statistics are very spotty and incomplete, though. They start with W15 but have nothing about 2016, for example. The format isn't consistent from one post to the other. They often (although not always) only give the percentage of "companies with one female founder" instead of the total percentage of female founders. They list the countries of origin but with no percentage at all except for the US.
Most importantly, they don't list the level of education of founders, which I think would show they are not primarily helping the disenfranchised.
YC is a business. It makes sense that they would choose healthy founders with high education levels, high IQ, drive, grit, what have you. They are a business, not a charity. And that's fine.
But the claim that they are making the world a better place is a bit rich. If (for example) you're funding crypto -- including NFTs! -- you're not doing that for the betterment of humanity.
Do you ever have a take that doesn't favorably frame your preferred discussion parameters whether they're stated or not? Isn't there a way to imagine this has been binary in some people's experience? Wouldn't that be a failure of this mission you'd want to know about?
> But for most in the US, it seems like YC funds only [etc.].
That's far from accurate, and I don't think it's very helpful to say "for most in the US". Surely only a small minority in the US have even heard of YC.