Ralston: Y Combinator would not have funded a young Steve Jobs
Geoff Ralston · A Conversation with Paul Graham - Moderated by Geoff Ralston · Y Combinator · Sep 1, 2018 · at 39:09
Geoff Ralston, YC partner, discusses Y Combinator's founder evaluation criteria and emphasis on backing benevolent founders with co-founder Paul Graham.
0:00 / 0:10exact quote · 10.1s
▶ Watch the full episode on YouTube → 720p mp4 · rendered on demand · StarZero watermark
“I don't think we'd fund a Steve Jobs at YC. Well, that's not good. Yeah. And the reason is, especially when Steve Jobs was starting off, he was an asshole.”
quote is from the automated transcript, cleaned for reading: filler sounds and stutters are removed, nothing is rephrased. names can be misheard (the analysis reads context, assessments check outside sources). how →
More from Geoff Ralston
Ralston: Magic Leap raised $2.3B but seems to have almost nothing
“Magic Leap raised 2.3 billion dollars, and they seem to have almost nothing.”
Ralston: Seed investors demanding five-year financial projections are inexperienced
“If you run into an investor who is asking for five-year projections at seed, you've run into what we colloquially call a noob. They don't know what they're doing. Who has five year predictions at this point?”
Ralston: Pitch decks are largely useless for raising seed funding
“For raising seed, I think decks are not that useful. As an angel investor myself, I almost never even look at the deck. I just want to look at the founder and hear their story and see how they tell it.”
Ralston: VCs are not all brilliant, but they easily detect founder dishonesty
“If there's one thing, VCs aren't all brilliant, they're not actually all that good at being a VC, but what they are good at is sniffing this stuff out.”
Ralston: Unequal equity splits like 51/49 are better to maintain control
“It's usually better to have somewhat equal shares, not, not, but not completely equal, and if one person has 51% and the other person has 49%, then they can control.”
Ralston: SAFEs beat debt because debt allows investors to kill viable startups
“About lifestyle companies and why I think the safe is preferred in general to debt is because we've seen too many times where the fact that there's debt there is used to kill a company that didn't have to die. And it's too easy for investors to call that debt …”