
Why I Dropped Out Of YC - daniellegeva
http://wikichen.is/writing/why-i-dropped-out-of-yc/
======
birken
Look, startups suck. Failed startups suck. Successful startups suck. Silicon
Valley sucks. But so does working regular jobs, and so do a lot of things. The
problem here is probably that you had the wrong expectations, and then when
reality hit, it hit really hard.

If you want to play the game, you better be mentally prepared for dealing with
a lot of shit. Egos are going to clash. Friendships are going to be strained.
Stress is going to occur. To use one of my favorite quotes my dad always said
to me, "that is life in the big city". Startups are not romantic -- they are a
slog.

But... if you are building something you want to build, it can be worth it.
Just don't expect it to be easy.

~~~
hnriot
Startups don't suck! After having worked at plenty over the years I don't
agree at all. I guess it depends how you respond to change and volatility.
Some people find comfort in things staying the same, but I enjoy the high rate
of change in startups. I enjoy the pace, sometimes it can be stressful but
after a few you don't get too worried - investors come and go, products come
and go, fortunes comes and go. It's not the destination that matters, if all
you're focused on is the exit then you'll miss the fun. For me it's about
staying current. After being a software dev for 25 years I still absolutely
love the latest jquery widget, or that Factorie has just hit 1.0 and I can do
Dependency Parsing in Scala, or that Pig can now talk to Spark, etc.. To enjoy
startups you have to love technology. It's like dating, if all you're thinking
about is getting the girl into bed it won't end well, if instead you enjoy the
conversation and are genuinely having a good time then ... who knows.

~~~
laureny
> To enjoy startups you have to love technology.

In my experience, if you love technology and tinkering, you should absolutely
_not_ work at a startup.

In the first years, a startup's main objective is results, results, results.
Now is not the time to play with the latest node.js module, it's about picking
the technology that will allow you to reach your goal the fastest, period.
Compromise on that and another startup built on PHP will beat you to the
punch.

If you love tinkering, join a big company. Spend a few months there to prove
yourself to your colleagues and superiors and once you have that, you will
have no problems carving out a comfortable 20% time that only you know about
that you can use to tinker with the latest hotness.

Just don't do that at a startup, or be prepared to be the reason why the
startup failed.

~~~
capkutay
If you're right, clearly Larry/Sergei, elon musk, Steve Wozniak, etc have no
place in start ups... I think you picked a controversial statement that's easy
to poke holes in

~~~
laureny
Take a look at the technologies that were used to bootstrap all these
startups:

\- Google: C++

\- Microsoft: assembly

\- Apple: assembly

\- eBay/PayPal: Java/C++

Like I said, there is simply no room in the early years of a start up to
experiment with recent technology. I'd go further and claim that it's actually
critical to use older, established technology to get your startup off the
ground so you can focus on your idea without being hampered by technological
glitches.

~~~
morganherlocker
You seem to be conflating programming languages with technology.

------
einhverfr
If I have learned one thing from reading HN here it is:

If you want ownership (and by that I mean an equal say), you want to do a
lifestyle business, not a startup. Once you start accepting other people's
money, you get trapped into their expectations of an exit strategy.

That exit strategy ends in one of three ways:

1\. Your startup is sold and either you have a regular job or you no longer
have any say. Either way you hopefully have some money.

2\. Your startup goes public, makes you very wealthy, and now you are beholden
to the SEC, tax lawyers, accounting lawyers, etc.

3\. Your startup fails and ends.

That's it. You may have a great idea, with scalable revenue, etc. But if you
want control you have to fund it yourself. That's one reason why I doubt
Efficito will ever take investment money (my co-founder and I are on the same
page there) from outside parties.

Where startups are better is where you want help to achieve greater rewards
and don't mind being beholden to investors. That's the decision that has to be
made before even looking at incubators.

~~~
mitochondrion
Not to nitpick, but I don't think that you really mean to say "lifestyle
business". When I think of a lifestyle business, I think of a smallish,
relatively passive revenue generator.

I think that there might be roughly three types of companies: those
financially backed through equity, small passive-ish businesses that allow the
owner to go off and live their "lifestyle", and boot-strapped (equity intact)
active corporations.

Personally, I want to retain all equity/control and would choose to dominate
the market rather than milk the profit margin.

Anyway, maybe I've missed the mark. I'd love to further flesh this out.

~~~
misterjangles
Actually a lifestyle company is pretty much the term for any business that
makes a great living for the owners and employees, but never results in
significant profit for investors.

Investors won't touch a company with a 10 foot pole if they get a whiff of
lifestyle corporation because they'll never get their investment back. But
this doesn't make it a bad company, despite what you read around here on HN.
In reality a lifestyle company can be just about the greatest, most satisfying
and financially rewarding job that you can have. You just won't get any
investor telling you that because there's nothing there for them.

~~~
einhverfr
> Investors won't touch a company with a 10 foot pole if they get a whiff of
> lifestyle corporation because they'll never get their investment back.

It's not actually that they won't get their investment back. It's that they
won't get it back in a form that really works for them. If I were to offer a
VC an investment plan that would mean reliable payments of 30% of what they
invested every year starting in five years and continuing forever, that would
not be an attractive deal. Would they get their investment back many times
over? Sure. But the thing is, it wouldn't happen all at once as a large
payoff.

~~~
misterjangles
Yea good point. They would probably be more likely to get their money back
actually, but it won't be a massive payout.

------
wisty
The author is a very good writer, but they don't actually say why they dropped
out of YC. At best, they say "I'm glad I dropped out, because it wasn't much
fun". (Yeah, they say that's the reason, but I believe that's a post-
rationalisation).

Apparently, the company was stalling, and there were lots of disputes. It's a
startup. I guess the author walked earlier than usual - that's either smart or
dumb .... it's hard to know which without knowing more.

But there's not enough meat in the article to have a sane discussion on, other
than making wild allegations about the author or YC or starups or Moleskin
journals.

~~~
gojomo
While it's mixed in amongst a bunch of other detail, several related reasons
are given:

"…an irreconcilable working relationship rooted in fundamental differences in
personalities and misaligned expectations of roles and responsibilities…"

"…the startup would never be something I could call my own, not just in stake
but in equal say… …in this case the lack [of a sense of ownership] tore [the
startup] apart…"

"…it just wasn’t fun anymore…"

More specifics about the irreconcilable clashes over roles and sense of
ownership would have been great, but there's enough to see that there were
unpleasant disagreements between friends that got worse rather than better
over time, and it made more sense for the author to leave than others. Happens
all the time among people with strong opinions and unclear areas-of-mutual-
deference...

------
zaidf
Did you leave the startup that got into YC or did the whole start up(your
cofounder(s)) also leave YC? Your writing hints at the former in which case it
sounds like you left a start up that got into YC, not as much YC.

~~~
jusben1369
He left his startup which continued on in YC without him.

------
apunic
> life’s too short to wear hot pants.

Yes and now get back into your comfort zone.

Sorry, to be harsh but I just couldn't figure out why you left whom--YC, your
startup, your cofounders? And what's all about this Moleskine? Happy about any
clue or tl;dr

~~~
johnjlocke
Perhaps this article was brilliant content marketing for Moleskine notebooks.
That seemed to be the hero of the article, not the author.

~~~
scrrr
Yep. Perhaps I should write a long article about my 1 dollar notebook I bought
at a subway station. And the 1 dollar pen. It came without a plastic wrapping
and serves me well!

People are brandwashed.

------
sillysaurus2
_But if you asked me for the one reason why it didn’t work out, the truth is
that it just wasn’t fun anymore_

Is YC fun? Not the dinners. The work you're there to do.

It seems like doing a successful startup is closer to this than to fun:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7222850](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7222850)

 _Maybe in the wake of a failed startup I deluded myself into thinking great
teams are predicated on great friendships, a truism that no longer holds
absolute truth._

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what a friendship is in a business
context. The cofounders have to have been friends for quite awhile, otherwise
the stress will tear them apart. But they probably don't have to be dear
friends, or the kind of friend you hug. It's just business.

 _to those like me who held the institution on a pedestal_

This seems the central issue. YC is ultimately about business. It's awesome,
it's changed the world and my life, but having expectations that it's going to
be fun and that you're there with dear friends seems off the mark. But I've
never done YC, so this is just speculation on my part.

~~~
sheetjs
> it's changed the world and my life ... but I've never done YC, so this is
> just speculation on my part.

If you haven't done YC, how has it changed your life?

~~~
sillysaurus2
Airbnb provides a lot of help for people without a lot of money. I would've
been in a bad position if not for Airbnb.

Dropbox has made my life a lot less stressful.

HN gives us all so many opportunities. For example, the monthly "who is
hiring?" threads. If anyone is suddenly stricken with a run of bad luck, then
they can make a post about it and the community will come together to at least
offer them work. People here like talent, and can find ways to use it. Most
other places aren't like that. And imagine a world with only Reddit.

Also, imagine a world with no HN and no Reddit.

YC has made seed funding more accessible, and given founders more power. The
VC's had the upper hand before YC. Now the VCs seem to be closer to servants
than masters. If I decide to do a startup, that will impact me.

Probably some other things I haven't thought of off hand.

------
yanivt
Sorry to say this but it sounds like you're not a right fit for startups.
Startups aren't for everyone. If you want to be a founder it is absolutely a
gut wrenching challenge. You have to put yourself out there and then be torn
apart a million different ways. You have to adapt and change, listen to
others. Be relentless. Work is a grind, you don't get to work on what's fun.
You have to work on what's right. And if you can't get a very deep sense of
fulfillment with all that sacrifice, it doesn't mean you're a bad person. It
just means you should get a normal job, or be employee 100 at a company, just
don't be a founder.

~~~
saganus
I'm curious about what you think is a way to actually get to work on what's
fun. I know fun is a personal definition, but as I'm starting to build a
product myself and I do find it fun and I'm doing it because I like it being
fun, I hear this warnings and it kind of makes me think.

Of course I'm afraid I will fail, but I also don't think working at an office
is fun, unless you get to work on a cool project and there's no politics (yeah
right..) or something like that. But then if building a product yourself, on
your own terms, with your own hands, etc, is not fun, then what is? And I
don'mean to be rhetorical or sarcastic. I'm asking seriously.

With a lot of comments along the same lines as how hard it is because in the
end it's business, what does it mean to build a product for fun, but where the
business part is either not the most important part, or even present at all?

Would that be like building a product and giving it away, so it's actually
only for fun?

~~~
yanivt
I would think the most fun thing to do would be to join a startup that's doing
something that gets you excited, that already has an awesome team, that's
already validated the product and the market. At that point it's still a lot
of work but at least you know what you're getting into, there's less banging
your head against the wall, and you're just helping to make the rocket ship
go.

------
YuriNiyazov
I dropped out of YC in '08\. It's really OK, I am not out on the street with
glazed-over eyes wondering what could've been.

~~~
astrofinch
YC wasn't such a huge deal in '08 though, were they?

~~~
YuriNiyazov
I guess I don't know what you mean. They were certainly out of the "we don't
know if this experiment is going to work or not" stage, and it was clear that
the experiment was working. The number of startups that were being funded was
less, but the number of startups in general was less too.

------
rdl
I'm still confused what happened: did you have a cofounder dispute? Aaron is
probably the most chill partner at YC, so you got good advice I'm sure.

~~~
redschell
I read it twice, but I still didn't catch a motive beyond "it wasn't fun." I'm
thinking he couldn't stomach the process of building a company: the day in,
day out of keeping a fledgling venture alive.

On the bright side, he may have saved his former company's life by parting
ways with it when he did. Early stage ventures past the incubator/accelerator
stage don't seem to weather cofounder disputes without taking significant
damage.

~~~
einhverfr
The motive that came through to me was a sense of a loss of voice, i.e. he
didn't feel like he had an equal say now that they had accepted money from
investors. I.e. unrealistic expectations.

~~~
rdl
I don't really understand that. Investors gave you money because they believed
in the vision you conveyed (or whatever); aside from some very minimal
minority-shareholder protections, and protecting your reputation, investors in
early stage companies have very little power over you.

The strongest pressure is probably from cofounders, or from
employees/customers (once you have those; you can also fire either), or from
yourself.

~~~
einhverfr
> Investors gave you money because they believed in the vision you conveyed
> (or whatever);

But it isn't just that. They are locked into an exit strategy and they have to
protect that interest. This is even true of the investors with the most
honesty and integrity.

In other words, one would hope that an investor would not micromanage, but the
investor is ultimately in it to make money and has a few small acceptable
options to do that, so they are going to protect that interest. Money ==
power.

~~~
rdl
Seed stage investors have essentially no power. They have convertible notes
(i.e. are debtholders) -- this gives them about as much power over you as your
credit card company, as long as you stay current on the payments (which are
usually deferred in the contract); YC is common-holder (and has 2-10%).

You can literally ignore the investors for at least the duration of the note
(and probably longer) with no real repercussions. If you _sell_ the company,
they'll be able to get in line for money (and generally get paid first), but
until Series A, investors have essentially no control to do anything.

In practice, being a dick to your investors (intentionally or unintentionally)
is a bad idea (sorry! was busy!), as they usually will help you a lot more if
they know _how_ they can help you, but otherwise, it's pretty much at the
bottom of concerns.

------
courtf
I feel a certain amount of empathy for the author, mostly due to having been
adrift through some lengthy segments of my own life. I will only say that
spending much time navel-gazing is a largely futile exercise, particularly
when the fruits of that labor are so decidely ambiguous and unfocused. Put
some distance, in the metaphysical sense, between yourself and these events.

------
throwaway7808
The thing about YC, is that it is the 'Steve Jobs way', the way of brilliant
showmanship. But also the way of blatant lies and distortions fields. It is
not the 'Wozniak Way'.

(I'm also a YC dropout.)

~~~
muglug
The "Wozniak Way" was to do something very smart and ahead of its time, and
let someone else do the marketing that was crucial to its success. The
"Wozniak Way" may power some great open source projects, but successful great
startups.

------
ryanatkn
I'm curious how the OP found his startup partner(s) and what the
irreconcilable differences were.

~~~
drjacobs
Seriously. The title is 'why' and there is no explicit explanation.

------
jseliger
I left this (very small point) on Jonathan's blog but think it worth noting
here too:

 _Taking the new Moleskine from the shelf and removing it from its plastic
wrap, I turned to the first blank page and picked up my pen._

Good luck on the next steps. One small suggestion, however: consider a Rhodia
Webnotebook next time (I wrote about it here:
[http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/product-review-
rhod...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/product-review-rhodia-
webbie-webnotebook)). It's more durable than Moleskines and the paper is
consistently better. I use a pocket-size notebook but there are A4 versions
too.

------
aelaguiz
I sometimes wonder if people like this wake up one day and realize they tossed
one of the most important opportunities of their lives because they are
stubborn. Probably not.

------
qq66
Irrelevant to the article, every business dreams of the brand loyalty that
Moleskine enjoys. Look how often the article uses the brand name for a largely
commodity product.

------
msutherl
I just want to say you're not alone in being jaded and disillusioned about
"Silicon Valley at large". There are a lot of things about it that are fucked
up and you should absolutely blaze your own trail or look elsewhere if it
doesn't sit right with you. There are a lot of people in tech who deliberately
steer clear and they're not hanging out on HN either. For some reason I'm
still stuck on this site though.

------
zxcvvcxz
I wish the author would have talked specifically about the clash with his
partner(s), that would have been actually insightful/interesting. But maybe
privacy concerns prevent that which is understandable.

I've actually been in a similar position with an incubator startup-thing where
my cofounders couldn't carry on working on what we (perhaps mostly I)
initially set out to do. Working on anything else certainly feels like hot
pants to me. But alas, I'm taking the other route and seeing what happens when
I swallow my pride and decide to try learning about something that I think is
otherwise bullshit. Just this one time though... can't let the rest of the
world tell you to work on shit you don't want to work on forever ;)

Anyone else relate to this for an incubator-type thing? How did staying a path
you didn't initially like vs. quitting work out for y'all?

------
par
I'm not sure this says why you dropped out. Is your primary reason because it
wasn't 'fun'? I'm not sure startups are supposed to be 'fun'. They are
incredibly hard ventures to solve problems where others have failed.

~~~
gfodor
If you are literally having zero fun doing something for a sustained period of
time you should probably stop doing that. Startups are hard work but there
should be small victories along the way that should be fun. There should be
fun in the experience of creating something. There should be fun in sharing
what you've built with people. If you're not getting any of that and the
environment is completely toxic something is probably wrong.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I would replace "fun" with "rewarding" in your comment.

------
Void_
I just came to say I love this style of writing. Easy to read and funny. Good
job.

~~~
saeranv
Agreed. I've started following his blog for this reason. An excellent voice.

------
wslh
It seems like he was into YC to write about how he dropped.

He could enjoy the ride just for fun.

------
theklub
Was that a commercial for moleskin?

