We've funded a lot of startups like that. In fact, we especially like them. We can probably help any startup that hasn't already raised a series A round from VCs. Half maybe more of the startups we fund don't need the money. And in fact the money is only a small part of what YC does.
The money we invest works more like financial aid in college: it ensures that the people who do need money can cover their living expenses while YC is happening.
We'll still fund you, but instead of trying to build something launchable in three months, the goal becomes to build an impressive proof of concept to take to later stage investors to raise more money. No, we'll consider startups in any field. We've funded companies that make everything from microbes to fusion reactors to coffee carts. See our requests for startups to see some of the fields we're particularly interested in, and pages specifically for ai , hardware , biotech , and edtech companies.
We regularly accept solo founders. That said, our advice remains that one-person startups are tough and you're more likely to succeed with a cofounder. If you're looking for a co-founder, check out our co-founder matching platform. It's important for the founding team to have the skills to build their product themselves, rather than outsourcing it to someone else. For most businesses, that usually means you need a technical co-founder.
We wrote about some here. In a typical YC batch, about the half companies applied multiple times before being accepted. If you've applied before and not gotten in, we strongly encourage you to apply again. Having made progress since your last application is a strong signal to us. One of YC's core principles is considering all applications equally. We don't rely on introductions the way many investors do. We've had many companies join YC after doing another accelerator.
However, if you've done another accelerator already, we may expect that you've reached a higher level of progress. Early decision allows you to apply to the batch after this one. For example, you can apply for the summer batch alongside those applying for the winter batch. This was designed for students who would like to apply but need to finish school before doing the program.
We offer early decision for both the winter and summer batches, and you just need to specify it somewhere on the application. If your company is already incorporated somewhere other than the United States, Canada, Singapore or the Cayman Islands, in order to participate in YC you will need to create a parent company that is in one of those jurisdictions. The existing company will then become a subsidiary of the new United States, Canada, Singapore or Cayman parent company.
While lawyers will drive this process, it will require a significant effort on your part. Check out Startup School , our free, online program and global community for founders! Visit the YC Library for additional videos, podcasts and essay resources. Sorry, but we have no provision for tours. There's not much to see anyway. We don't have founders work out of our space, so all you'd see most times would be a handful of people having conversations. Unfortunately we can't meet in person with every startup that wants us to invest.
There are just too many. Essentially the YC application process is the way we decide which of them to meet. Sorry, we are just too busy working with all the startups we've funded.
But we've described in some detail in what we do. Unfortunately we can't have conversations with everyone about their ideas. If you apply and we invite you to interviews we'll certainly talk about your idea with you though. The best way to publicize your product within the YC community is to get a few YC startups as happy users and ask them to recommend you to their peers.
That being said, we do keep a list of offers that we share with our active YC portfolio companies. If you would like to offer a special deal on your service or product to our companies, you can fill out this information form. We manually review these deals and will let you know if your offer has been approved or rejected.
The Y combinator is one of the coolest ideas in computer science. It's also a metaphor for what we do. It's a program that runs programs; we're a company that helps start companies. About A lot of people think it's younger because the press especially like to write about young founders. From time to time, we post open jobs at YC on this page.
But more importantly, over companies we've funded are currently hiring for thousands of roles. Late applications are those submitted after the application deadlines typically late March and mid-October.
Your application will be reviewed on the merits of its content and not on its timing. You lose out on i responsiveness — it will take us longer to get back to you since we received your app outside of the dedicated time set aside for application processing, ii coverage — fewer partners review late applications which means there's a greater chance they'll miss your value prop, and iii acceptance rate — late applications are generally competing for fewer slots, so it's harder to be accepted the later you apply.
Late applications will be processed ad-hoc, based simply on the availability of the partners to read and review it. We review all late applications with the same criteria as on-time applications, the only difference is that it will take a little patience to get your results. While we do our best to process late applications as soon as we can, it depends on the availability of partners and the time they need to read and review the late applications.
Partners are busy helping the startups we've funded so it may take anywhere from a couple of days to a few weeks before you'll get a reply. As I studied the choices before entrepreneurs, I noticed that some options had the potential for generating higher financial gains but others, which founders often chose, conflicted with the desire for money.
Few have been both. The surprising thing is that trying to maximize one imperils achievement of the other. Entrepreneurs face a choice, at every step, between making money and managing their ventures. Founders are usually convinced that only they can lead their start-ups to success. At the start, the enterprise is only an idea in the mind of its founder, who possesses all the insights about the opportunity; about the innovative product, service, or business model that will capitalize on that opportunity; and about who the potential customers are.
The founder hires people to build the business according to that vision and develops close relationships with those first employees. The founder creates the organizational culture, which is an extension of his or her style, personality, and preferences. From the get-go, employees, customers, and business partners identify start-ups with their founders, who take great pride in their founder-cum-CEO status.
Their attachment is evident in the relatively low salaries they pay themselves. That was so even after taking into account the value of the equity each person held. Many entrepreneurs are overconfident about their prospects and naive about the problems they will face. They invite family members and friends, angel investors, or venture capital firms to invest in their companies. In doing so, they pay a heavy price: They often have to give up total control over the enterprise.
Once the founder is no longer in control of the board, his or her job as CEO is at risk. But, paradoxically, the need for a change at the top becomes even greater when a founder has delivered results.
Let me explain why. The first major task in any new venture is the development of its product or service. They think investors should have no cause for complaint and should continue to back their leadership. At that point, leaders face a different set of business challenges. The founder has to build a company capable of marketing and selling large volumes of the product and of providing customers with after-sales service. The organization has to become more structured, and the CEO has to create formal processes, develop specialized roles, and, yes, institute a managerial hierarchy.
A technology-oriented founder-CEO, for instance, may be the best person to lead a start-up during its early days, but as the company grows, it will need someone with different skills.
Indeed, in analyzing the boards of privately held ventures, I found that outside investors control the board more often where the CEO is a founder, where the CEO has a background in science or technology rather than in marketing or sales, and where the CEO has on average 13 years of experience.
Thus, the faster that founder-CEOs lead their companies to the point where they need outside funds and new management skills, the quicker they will lose management control. Success makes founders less qualified to lead the company and changes the power structure so they are more vulnerable. Investors wield the most influence over entrepreneurs just before they invest in their companies, often using that moment to force founders to step down. In other Seven news, the company named former Onebox.
One Silicon Valley? In such cases, investors allow founder-CEOs to lead their enterprises longer, since the founder will have to come back for more capital, but at some point outsiders will gain control of the board.
Whether gradual or sudden, the transition is often stormy. In , for instance, when a California-based internet telephony company finished developing the first generation of its system, an outside investor pushed for the appointment of a new CEO.
The founder refused to accept the need for a change, and it took five pressure-filled months of persuasion before he would step down. Used to being the heart and soul of their ventures, founders find it hard to accept lesser roles, and their resistance triggers traumatic leadership transitions within young companies.
On the one hand, they have to raise resources in order to capitalize on the opportunities before them. If they choose the right investors, their financial gains will soar.
My research shows that a founder who gives up more equity to attract cofounders, nonfounding hires, and investors builds a more valuable company than one who parts with less equity. The founder ends up with a more valuable slice, too. On the other hand, in order to attract investors and executives, entrepreneurs have to give up control over most decision making. Choosing money: A founder who gives up more equity to attract investors builds a more valuable company than one who parts with less—and ends up with a more valuable slice, too.
Soon, he had several suitors wooing him, including an inexperienced angel investor and a well-known venture capital firm. If he accepted the other offer,though, he would control just two of five seats on the board. Triandiflou felt that Ockham would grow bigger if he roped in the venture capital firm rather than the angel investor.
After much soul-searching, he decided to take a risk, and he sold an equity stake to the venture firm. Similarly, at Wily Technology, a Silicon Valley enterprise software company, founder Lew Cirne gave up control of the board and the company in exchange for financial backing from Greylock Partners and other venture capital firms.
As a result, CA bought Wily two years later for far more money than it would have if Cirne had tried to go it alone. On the other side of the coin are founders who bootstrap their ventures in order to remain in control.
Having set up nine stores, he has repeatedly rejected offers of funding that would enable the company to grow faster, fearing that would lead him to lose control. Most founder-CEOs start out by wanting both wealth and power. Their past decisions regarding cofounders, hires, and investors will usually tell them which they truly favor. Once they know, they will find it easier to tackle transitions. Founders who understand that they are motivated more by wealth than by control will themselves bring in new CEOs.
For example, at one health care—focused internet venture based in California, the founder-CEO held a series of discussions with potential investors, which helped him uncover his own motivations. Such founders are also likely to work with their boards to develop post-succession roles for themselves.
What do boards do with founders after asking them to step down as CEO? Ideally, a board should keep the founder involved in some way, often as a board member, and use his or her relationships and knowledge to help the new CEO succeed.
Many times, keeping the founder on board is easier said than done. Founders can act, sometimes unconsciously, as negative forces. They can resist the changes suggested by new CEOs and encourage their loyalists to leave. Some boards and CEOs try to manage those risks by taking half-measures, relegating the founder to a cosmetic role, but that can backfire. His successor also wanted Cirne to give up his position as board chairman. Boards can sometimes help founders find new roles.
The more concrete value the new CEO adds, the easier it will be for the founder to accept the transition. Founders who want to be CEO for a longer time in their next venture need to learn new skills. Accordingly, boards can encourage founders to take on new roles in their companies that will enable them to do so.
0コメント