Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Watsi (YC W13) raises $1.2M first-of-its-kind 'philanthropic seed round' (watsi.org)
240 points by chaseadam17 on July 25, 2013 | hide | past | web | favorite | 94 comments

This is awesome, I just donated and tried it out.

If you guys are open to some conversion rate optimization testing ideas I saw a few areas that would likely respond to treatments - drop me a line via my profile and I'd be happy to have our team put together a free breakdown and help out where we can resource wise.

Darn it, my "anti-procrastination" parameters set in when I was writing an EDIT to my comment above, sorry for creating a secondary account but wanted to leave this here before I forget and maybe round up some other good HN ideas:

1) People won't click what they can't see - I've now encountered the watsi blog a few times via media. Link to Watsi.com from the header of the blog. Stick a call to action on the right side that links directly to "Donate Now". The "Donate Bitcoins" is cool, but that goes to Watsi opps vs your core biz. Ideally dynamically pull down the "closest to being funded" profile and stick it there w/a big button.

2) In checkout I used PayPal and I almost I clicked off before I saw there was another step required in the "You're about to confirm your donation" and then "Complete Donation". I'd test a little bit of a bolder statement there, would be interested to see abandons there but glad to see that you are storing the session.

3) Improve visibility of after-checkout links / actions - After funding you provide social links to share the message, get those higher up / directly under the top paragraph of text. Also include your "View Other Profiles"

4) I was compelled to donate a second time when I realized that I could be the "Final funder" to close out a campaign - that seems like a really solid way to drive a secondary call to action in the email that you send and gives immediacy that is otherwise lacking.

5) Your instant email is great, but with more and more email clients blocking images by default (1) it's a lost opportunity - this is what I saw in my gmail client http://imgur.com/u9AifHM - get some basic ALT tags in there as a quick fix, as a longer term fix shrink your logo way down, put block text in the top image quadrant along with a call to action eg "Thank you for funding [NAME]'s medical treatment - click here to meet other new patients on Watsi!"

(1) http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/image-...

Watsi could use an API, so that I can rig code up in (for instance) contests to submit a donation every time a player finishes.

That would also have the beneficial effect of potentially randomizing some donations across the patient portfolio.

That's a really good idea. We started sketching out the API a bit ago but had to put it on hold. It's something we want/need to get right. Hopefully I get some time in the next few months to get started on it.

Let me know when you have a beta or something. We could definitely have used it for the crypto challenges, and we have a much bigger set of (non-crypto) challenges coming up that I'd love to plug directly into Watsi.

If we'd had an API, we would probably have done smaller-dollar donations for people who got (say) halfway through.

Also, weird as this will sound: it feels very awkward talking up donations from the challenges (for one thing, the dollar amounts we're talking about are a pittance), and so I rarely do. But if the donations were automated, we'd automatically post the donation totals as well. The way things like Twitter work, repetition is hugely valuable.

We've had some other partners ask for a way to automate donations. We have a plan for that, and we'll be working on it next.

When you do get a chance to work on the API, I have an idea to tie donations to wristband activity monitors - so a sponsor such as a parent, etc. could donate into a holding fund, and then the fund gets released to your patients a bit at a time as the wristband wearer walks/runs.

People have a great need for a sense of purpose in their lives, and tying their activity to the well being of another seems like a win-win.

So, if you could keep that use case in mind while designing your API...

That is actually an incredible idea.

Yep. That's exactly what Striiv does: tracks your activity and lets you donate to a variety of projects around the world for clean water, reforestation, and preventing polio via GlobalGiving.org.


Awesome idea.

Thank you Grace.

As long as I have your ear, I would also like to recommend better integration into Facebook.

These touching stories are perfectly poised to go viral, and Facebook is the perfect place to make that happen.

You just need to to set up the right conditions and get the right flow going.

Like getting the right soil, the proper fertilizer, the perfect growing conditions for a plant. Then you just plop in the seed and it grows, seemingly on its own.

Your existing "share" button just isn't good enough for that. I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what is good enough, but I do know that examining and solving that problem could open up some amazing viral growth.

I'll bet you can find some Watsi Facebook share posts/campaigns that were wildly successful and fast.

They probably start out with a post like this: "This is very dear to my heart. I just donated $30. We only need $150 more. Can you help?" Then other people start replying "I just gave $50", "I just donated", "We only need $100 more", "We DID IT!" - all on one person's timeline. The seed. Then the flow, the shared excitement, and finally the celebration. In their house, with their friends watching.

It's everything that makes sports so exciting, but even better because at it's heart it satisfies a basic human need to help others.

Is there a way for you to facilitate that on Facebook? Like one click to seed, with compelling text? And maybe realtime updates on each thread from someone at Watsi? With a celebration at the end? And updates from Watsi directly onto that person's Facebook thread?

Like I said, I don't necessarily have all the answers, but I can see the possibilities.

Also would love an API for an idea I had: a reverse-ad-platform where folks could promo campaigns where people need real help. Basically trying to help grass-roots medical campaigns to get more exposure across the "ad platform network".

Maybe you should consider open sourcing your backend, then people could help.

We have considered this a few times, but I always come back to the fact that our app is specific to us. I don't think it's useful to others, per se. Also, most startups don't open source their core business code. Some do, and I think it makes sense for them. I don't think it makes sense for us though.

Open source is hugely important to me, and Watsi wouldn't be what it is without all those awesome people out there writing code for the masses. Props to them!

Congratulations on this great news, I think what you're doing is really valuable.

Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by this:

"Also, most startups don't open source their core business code. Some do, and I think it makes sense for them. I don't think it makes sense for us though."

My understanding is that normally as a business the considerations here would be competitive, right? But that doesn't apply in the context of non-profits. If someone else came in and used your "core business code" to make something which was then helpful to other people, that would be a good thing, right?

Likewise, your statement about the app being specific to you and not useful to others makes sense within the normal parameters of a business considering open source. But I think the idea is not that your code would be a self-sustaining open source project because it's especially useful as code, but rather that people (for example here) would be willing to help you do your work for free because they support the mission of your organization. A sort of "in-kind" donation of their time and energy and expertise, right?

I definitely think that between your admirable mission and the prestige of your network you could certainly be getting lots of free help and resources beyond just cash donations. If you could develop a workflow (via open source or some other mechanism) to take advantage of volunteer engineer labor, you could presumably pursue whatever software goals you have radically faster, I would think.

> My understanding is that normally as a business the considerations here would be competitive, right? But that doesn't apply in the context of non-profits.

There's competition in every market, non-profits included. Even though we're not trying to compete for dollars (necessarily) in that we hope to help "grow the pie," we are competing for attention. Anyway, that's probably another discussion.

> If someone else came in and used your "core business code" to make something which was then helpful to other people, that would be a good thing, right?

Of course! My hunch is that that the existing open source systems out there that do the crowdfunding thing would suffice. Catarse[1] is one I can think of off the top of my head. I looked into using it for Watsi but decided it wasn't going to work. My point is is that there is already software out there like ours. The fact that someone could use ours as a base is nice, but not motivation enough to open it up. Are crowdfunding platforms going to become the new CMS? It might already be happening.

> A sort of "in-kind" donation of their time and energy and expertise, right?

Yes, and we are already leveraging that, just selectively. Everything takes time, especially managing open source software. Even though the tools have gotten much better (does anybody remember what life was like before Githug, et al?) it doesn't mean the cost of managing the contributions have gone down to zero. We want to leverage energy where we can, but in a way that works for us. Open sourcing our code doesn't necessarily feel like the right approach to me.

[1] https://github.com/catarse/catarse

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer. I run a small, internet-based non-profit (in a totally unrelated sphere, contemporary art) as my job, so these sorts of questions are directly applicable to what I do.

I certainly understand your last paragraph; we have to balance the help we get from volunteers against the amount of time and energy it takes to supervise them. And you know far better than I the extent to which this specific kind of software is easily available or not.

I think the most interesting question here, one with big implications, is the question of how to think about competition in the non-profit sector. Traditionally non-profits compete for resources all the time, money being the obvious example. If my patron philanthropist has $1m to spend this year, every $100k they give to another organization is $100k they aren't giving to me.

Likewise, I understand what you mean about attention. If you believe that you are uniquely suited to grow the whole pie with Watsi, and if you believe that similar charities forming would limit the attention you receive, it seems totally reasonable to think competitively.

My intuition says there are important distinctions to be made here, but I'm not able to suss them out at the moment. I'd love to read more thinking some day about this, especially in the context of internet, start-up-like organizations. How does a motive to serve, put in place of a motive to profit, alter these dynamics?

> I run a small, internet-based non-profit (in a totally unrelated sphere, contemporary art)

Early on we were approached by a budding organization that wanted to license our platform. I was initially excited by the potential for revenue, but shortly realized that what we were building would be too custom to us. Coming from a consulting background, I didn't think it would be worth it to the licensee.

> how to think about competition in the non-profit sector

Yes, this is interesting to think about. My personal opinion is that non-profits might be better off moving more towards a for-profit model in terms of needing an actual revenue model. There are a ton of great non-profits out there, but I'm not convinced fundraising is the only way to stay in business in the long term.

Thanks for the discussion!

Fragmentation could actually be bad for something like Watsi. If there's only one, and it's very well-run and well-publicized, it might be better in the short run to keep the shop closed.

If Watsi really flies, expect groups like Heifer International to offer similar programs. If the "business" model works, someone else may code up a clone of the backend anyway.

Every few months for the last 10 years (or so) another non-profit crowdfunding site pops up. Some make it, some don't. Here's a list of ones still here:

And here's a few of ones now defunct from my bookmark list:

Watsi is doing great work so I don't mean to detract from it, but they are not the first crowdfunding for good platform, nor the first in the medical space. Much like the startup world, the non-profit space is full of organizations that failed to gain traction and sustain their operations. I personally hope Watsi is here for the long haul.

They may want to license their software later as a revenue stream, in furtherance of their mission.

That's interesting! Is this indeed what the thinking is?

For ex, What if someone wants to do a "Watsi for education related projects", then your code base can be helpful.

Vittana already does that. http://www.vittana.org/

http://wishbone.org/ is another education-based crowdfunding platform. I really like their graphic design, and they have a great mission.

We're searching the world for a front-end developer to join our team in time to travel with us to Nepal on August 20th. If you or anyone you know is interested, drop us a line! http://bit.ly/1boYhK8

Anyone reading this has enough time and money to fund another person now:


Do it.

Incredibly the donate form was so frictionless it not only didn't complain when I.didn't fill in the email address it also didn't complain when I didn't give a name either. No other charitable platform I've seen has let me get away with that, they want an email with which to track and leverage, so props to the Watsi team for making donation feel like donation and making it easy.

I just tried to donate and since I use 1password to pre-fill the CC info, their form validation didn't kick in, and the "Confirm Donation" button was still ghosted out. I had to do some sleuthing and simulate some KeyUp events before it was enabled.

If anyone from Watsi is looking, please look into this (might be an edge case though). I was close to a "eh, let me do this later." - which is bad.

This is a known issue with tools like 1password and LastPass. I'm not sure how to fix it. If you have any ideas, please hit me up on Twitter: @jc00ke.

I would skip the auto-validation and let the user hit the always-enabled "Confirm Donation of $xx" button to validate the form. Tried and true and catches the auto-fill cases.

Yeah, we'll consider that. Thanks Dave! ;-)

A lazy solution is to periodically check for changes to the field, independently of any events. Could also let the user behavior trigger a validation check.

I wonder if a focus/blur combo would trigger the needed event and the value would be set? I need to try it out.

If you're using the jQuery Rails validations I believe you'll have to set the input's "changed" data to true before it'll run the validations again. Something like $(".my-input").data("changed", true);

If not, then good luck :D

Hit backspace, reenter last digit.

Done. :)

Just freaking tremendous, guys. You're doing something magical: directly connecting philantropy to tangible results.

How can we help you spread the word? What's your media strategy? What's the pinnacle- the Today show? Somebody paying for a primetime ad?

Thanks so much! Really appreciate the kind words.

Re: media strategy. Broad, national, mainstream outlets will be our next big challenge. Today would be amazing. Good Morning America, Frontline World News, 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakariah, Ellen, Diane Sawyer, Nick Kristof, Al Jazeera...any of those would be a pinnacle :)


HackerNews: here's your challenge. Who knows someone who produces at one of those programs?

(Watsi, can one of your investors hook you up? I have to imagine Conway, PG, et al have the right connections. I wish there was something we could do with technology, like start a twitter campaign or something that would get you noticed... speaking of which, you guys would be the only place where I would actually click on a "share what you just did on facebook" button, after donating. Don't really care to share what book I purchased on Amazon, but I'd definitely be happy to share that I helped fund Phillip's treatment for cleft lip.)

I live in Heidelberg, Germany and I can't even fathom how many people here would be intrigued by watsi. I just found out about it and am blown away by how effective a simple idea can be executed.

You guys should get a grip in europe. Are you planning on making regular bank transactions possible in europe? For traditionally-minded people who'd like to donate.

We have had some traction in Europe already, but it's been a while since we ran the numbers. We do have a blog post on the topic: http://j.mp/is-generosity-geographic? and we'll be looking to expand wherever we can.

As for regular bank transactions, we're going to explore it. For now you can hook up your bank to your Paypal account. It's not ideal though, we know!

Thanks for your support!

Serious congratulations. The idea of separating overhead from donations is a important idea that needs to be emulated more in the charitable community.

The idea of separating overhead from donations is a important idea that needs to be emulated more in the charitable community.

Most already do, but that's actually a problem for most charities, since they can't figure out how to scale or operate more efficiently because their budget is tied so directly to services.

For more than this, see the reasoning and extensive examples in Ken Stern's book With Charity For All. I wrote about it here: http://blog.seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-... , and anyone interested in how the charitable subset of nonprofits actually operate should read the book.

(I'm a consultant who does grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies and have heard a million laments on this issue.)

I would be interested in your take on Dan Pallota's perspective (below, several times); he seems to have a lot of exposure with his claim that nonprofit isn't working as well as it could, primarily because of the focus on "overhead".


Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about... (20 min video)

  > nonprofits [...] are rewarded for how little they spend 
  > -- not for what they get done
Pallotta on Charity and the Culture of the Non-Profit Sector

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/dan_pallotta/ (1 hr EconTalk podcast)

  > The use of overhead as a measure of effectiveness makes it difficult for 
  > charities to attract the best talent, advertise, and invest for the future
Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential

http://amzn.com/B003BLY740 ($15 340 pg. Kindle book)

  > double-standards place the nonprofit sector at extreme disadvantage to
  > the for profit sector on every level

I heard the Econtalk, and he's correct. The problem is that a relatively small number of nonprofits will abuse overhead, which is how you end up with the perennial exposé of some nonprofit where the senior managers drive Ferraris and expense $500 lunches, and then everyone thinks administrative costs get a bad name and wants to restrict them; this is similar to the "every check has a cost" idea Paul Graham writes about here: http://www.paulgraham.com/artistsship.html. Since charities' real clients are funders, charities artificially hold back "administrative" costs, at the cost of effectiveness. Often some form of creative accounting gets used.

In addition, it's prestigious / sexy to see a staff person handing food over to someone, or providing an ear exam to a kid, or whatever. It's not sexy to get a functional CRM or logistics manager or whatever.

There's been some rejoicing in my nonprofit nerd circles about a recent acknowledgement by a few important nonprofit rating orgs that overhead is a bad measure of effectiveness: http://www.guidestar.org/rxa/news/news-releases/2013/2013-06...

it's not universally bad, it's just important to acknowledge corner cases. It's important to remember that a 'high overhead' though, does correlate to bad performance.

  > It's important to remember that a 'high overhead' though,
  > does correlate to bad performance.
Dan Pallota's entire point is that this line of thinking is wrong.

I don't think either of us have real statistics on this. I do know within certain nonprofit (mostly research, but not exculsively) organizations I've been in/worked with, increasing overhead has correlated with my personal dissatisfaction. The place where I volunteer, for example, spent a lot of money on a posh warehouse to prepare food, which was very different from the church that it operated out of - meals then were only delivered MWF instead of daily, and the client base shrunk, there may be a bit of mission creep too (but I'm not quitting volunteering for them quite yet). When I lived in DC, I was dismayed at that location's "parallel" (i.e. does the same thing, but unrelated) organization for similar reasons, except it had gone down the other side and was no longer delivering hot meals even, so I chose a different place to volunteer.

In the sciences, high overhead (as charged on top of grants given by taxpayer-funded organizations such as NIH, NSF, DOE) inevitably means questionably high payouts to the executive-level presidents, and what not. Now that I know how to read 990s, I am looking through the history of a particular nonprofit science research org; 10 years ago it was entirely run off of its endowment and had a promise to the researchers of independence from the tyrrany of grants. Over the course of the decade, the active scientist corpus has shrunk by 3/4, the president gets paid 3x more, the endowment is < 20% of what it used to be, and PIs are being pushed to apply for soft money, and they are negotiating overheads of 60% or more.

Then there are spectacularly bad organizations such as the Harlem Boy's Choir, which I have no personal experience with, but certainly serve as cautionary tales.

Charity:Water seperated donations from overhead too. Great interview here: http://revision3.com/foundation/scottharrison

wow, thank you for that video, It's amazing... In tears in some segments.

This blog post is about a donation!

Allowing smaller donations to be targeted and fully directed at specific goals is an interesting idea, but somebody needs to figure out the right words to use when discussing it.

dnautics is talking about how they separate donations given via their site from their overhead costs: 100% of what you give on the site goes to fund treatment, and overhead is paid for by "donations" (funding) such as the one mentioned here, and by people who give via the site but elect to target some of their donation to cover overhead (that option is presented when you give on their site).

thanks for clarifying for me, I clearly needed more coffee before posting!

I apparently failed to make my point. To informed people, that overhead is being funded by separate donations is clear enough. Uninformed people are developing a habit of thinking Watsi is a for profit business (and then making angry noises). It is my view that phrasing like "The idea of separating overhead from donations" exacerbates this source of noise.

"that overhead is being funded by separate donations is clear enough"... that's not always the case for all nonprofits.

Do you have a source for the thinking that people perceived Watsi as a for-profit business?

Mostly Paul Graham's twitter conversations and the occasional paranoid comment posted here.

Congrats to the Watsi.org team!

Thank you for everything, Eric!

You should be at the top of this thread Eric. I can't imagine any other investor in the world who would stay up all night coding for us while on vacation in Europe.

This is really cool, but does it scale?

I tend to think of Watsi as sort of a one-off, at least right now. Do you think it will become easier to make philanthropic ventures if funding them becomes similar to funding Venture companies? I mean in a way it already is, except you write a grant instead of pitching a capitalist.

Does this pave the way for more non-profit venture companies or is this just a one-off?

EDIT: Massive congratulations to the team at Watsi :). Job well done.

I just funded a pregnant women's medical care and it only cost $215??? In the USA it cost tens of thousands of dollars. Amazing.

On a separate note, this is an AWESOME idea and service. Trust the private sector to take on poverty, where the government has failed to date.

>Trust the private sector to take on poverty, where the government has failed to date.

The government has been pretty succesful in taking on poverty in Nordic countries, but it requires taxes.

In the USA, the doctors, nurses, and admin staff all live a more expensive life than their colleagues in less developed countries (and not in strictly bad ways). I'd also suspect that your $215 wouldn't cover, say, an emergency caesarian, or an epidural and similar drugs.

I can't speak to everywhere, but in Kenya (the funding in the OP was for a Kenyan) many of the charity medical facilities are run by religious organizations, who recruit religious medical professionals from abroad to volunteer their time and services. If an OB/GYN happens to be volunteering the person could very well receive a C section. They also have stockpiles of various drugs which they've received from donations, so they could get an epidural if they happened to have the right stuff in the stock room.

Most of the groups who take on poverty in Kenya are religious organizations. I guess they are the private sector but I often wonder if that's what people have in mind when they make comments like yours.

... and where the private sector has also failed to date.

Awesome. Thanks for donating!

It's pretty incredible to think that by connecting people, we may be able to transcend systems that aren't working.

Serious questions:

1. Do you think there may be selection effects in this type of donation model? How do you plan on preventing discrimination against the less photogenic?

2. Do my dollars, etc actually go directly to specific individuals, or is there a layer of intermediation a la Kiva (over which there was some confusion and "controversy" [1])

3. In a world where watsi-like treatment model becomes successful, do you believe that creating these individual-to-individual dependencies is a net positive improvement for society?

[1] http://pages.kiva.org/fellowsblog/2009/11/11/kiva-transparen...

Great questions.

>Do you think there may be selection effects in this type of donation model?

In short, no, because we leave patients posted until they are fully funded. More detail here: http://b.qr.ae/109DseY

>Do my dollars, etc actually go directly to specific individuals?

100% of your donation goes to the Medical Partner for the purpose of covering the cost of care for that specific person. In Watsi's case, however, sending money to the hospital is actually more efficient than sending money to the patient directly, because that's where the funds will ultimately end up. We talk more about operations in our FAQ: https://watsi.org/faq and in this blog post: http://bit.ly/Ynug55

>Do you believe that creating these individual-to-individual dependencies is a net positive improvement for society?

I believe systems like Watsi are the future of healthcare. There are roughly 200 countries in the world, and approximately 40 have functioning healthcare systems. In each of those 40 systems, healthcare is paid for by individuals, for individuals (either through taxation or insurance premiums). We're universalizing those same dynamics in a more transparent and accessible way.

Hi Adam

Do you do any benchmarking of the costs (and trends in costs) of Watsi-funded treatments with medical partners vs comparable standards of treatment in the same regions funded in other ways? I'm conscious that costs of treatment with private healthcare companies in the US vary hugely according to who is paying, and that aid can have both positive and negative side effects.

(an expansive answer might be better as a blog post than here, but I'm interested either way)

A "random" button (super smash bros style) which picked a random from page then post donation confirm showed you who was picked would help address the photogenic issue.

Also, some UK localization allowing gift aid would help you scoop up my tax with the donation. (Unless I missed it already, I'm only browsing on mobile.)

Thanks for the UK idea. Luckily we can also chat with Prizeo, one of the companies in our YC batch.

re: UK localization - mind emailing us connect@watsi.org about this? I'm curious to learn more about how the UK handles donations, especially if there is a tax (VAT?) involved. Thanks!

From what I've read in the past, It's intermediated (sort of?) like Kiva. Everyone an end-user sees is already promised funding by Watsi. The "pick a person" is sort of a feel-good, and perhaps a way for Watsi to refine their process for choosing "fundable" candidates.

To me, the photos are problematic: They increase funding, no doubt, but for all the wrong reasons. Donors shouldn't care about patient photos, except as part of some general evidence to reassure users that Watsi is not running or becoming the victim of a scam.

One of our goals is to facilitate an emotional connection between donors and patients. If good photos help us raise more money faster, then we may even have a moral obligation to use photos. We need donors to trust us, so yes, the photos are also there to reassure them that there is a person on the other side of the transaction.

Can you imagine any crowdfunding site out there, especially Watsi, without photos?

This is great news but I'm pretty sure this it is not a "first of its kind" occurrence as there are a number of vehicles (e.g. New Profit in Boston) that specialize in these types of strategic venture-like philanthropy investments.

Yup. There's a bunch of impact funds that do this kind of investment and measure themselves on metrics other than IRR. eg. Khosla Impact, Acumen, etc etc.

Very excited for and proud of the entire Watsi team!!

The absolute hardest part I have when donating on this site is having to choose who gets your money. It hurts me a lot realizing just how much help people in poverty need, and it hurts even more knowing that I (or anyone else for that matter) lack the resources to help everyone in need.

That said, congrats to the team for tackling such a worthy cause.

> ...and it hurts even more knowing that I (or anyone else for that matter) lack the resources to help everyone in need.

This isn't really true, most issues about resource distribution are political in nature and are not the result of a lack of resources.

Stay tuned, we're addressing that next ;-)

Awesome news guys -- cheering this on!

EDIT: Cheering => Donating -- https://watsi.org/fund-treatments

Seriously, your goal is awesome and I love it. Aside from donations (which I've done) is there anything else that we can do to help?

congrats watsi! you guys are my fave

This is incredible, question for you guys, do you avoid having to pay the PayPal fees if I pay with funds from my bank account? If so, everyone should try to do that to save the small percentage charge.

Good job guys!

Congratulations guys, it is an awesome news. I really love your mission and you have done wonderful job until now. Keep going like that!

Wish you luck for the future!

Well done guys!

Congrats guys! Well deserved :)

How do you prevent fraud?

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact