> I think 2000 companies/year is too few.

Between NYSE and Nasdaq there are about 3,700 publicly traded companies in the United States total right now. The current funding paradigm will have to change to accommodate that many companies (more IPOs? long-term private funds? who knows).

There's a huge funnel effect. Most (99%?) of the YC companies don't IPO. A lot get bought out on the way, and many fizzle out. There's an enormous Power Law effect happening. (DropBox and AirBnB at one point accounted for 2/3 of the valuation)

Here is some more data from the source: http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-portfolio-stats

> A lot get bought out on the way, and many fizzle out.

The concern is who does the buying? The number of public companies is small (and shrinking btw), how much more acquisitions can they absorb? If it is other private tech companies, the money is just changing hands between VC funds. In either case those sources of funding have to grow or change to provide more acquisition opportunities.

They can absorb a tremendous amount. The total market cap of the S&P is ~$18.5 trillion. [0] Total VC investment is ~$50 billion annually. [1] Let's say that each VC investment returned a 3X return (a reasonable average) then the S&P would only need to dilute itself by 1% per year to buy the entire stock of VC companies in that year.

Another way to look at it... In just one quarter [2] the S&P 500 spent more than $150 billion in stock buybacks, that's triple the annual amount of VC investment.

There is a tremendous amount of room for the market to absorb innovative real companies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index [1] http://nvca.org/pressreleases/annual-venture-capital-investm... [2] http://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/buyback/buyback_12....

How many companies a year are bought by public companies? (A quick google search didn't reveal the answer.)

That's another funding exit.

"build something people want"

Do people want 2000 different new tech things each year?

It's not hard to imagine 20,000 people who want five things each…but all of these people want a different set of five things.

There are indeed. But is YC really going after those?

As far as I understand they are def interested in research etc. But I have still to see any real complex or hard problems they are trying to solve. Or am I missing something?

Does nuclear fusion count as a "hard problem"?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-in...

I think it's way too early to see anything, and that's what you're probably missing ( no offense intended ). This shift towards supporting research and long term capital intensive companies is very recent as far as I understand, at most a year, parts of it just in months.

There's finding the companies/research projects, getting them staffed and sustainably funded, and then years if not decades of work before some of these real complex and hard problems are solved.

I'm not saying any of it is going to work but we're just looking at the first steps in this direction. It'll be a few years before anyone is able to really judge whether it's paying off or not. Unfortunately this is beyond most of our ( myself included ) attention spans, so we'll probably feel like nothing is happening. Fortunately it seems like these folks are putting mechanisms in place that will outlast our collective attention and keep the engine running for the long time span these problems will need.

I'm pretty excited about it.

Well I agree it's too early to say anything, that goes for both of us.

However the angel model isn't really suited well for solving complex problems it's mostly not even a execution problem (besides as I said elsewhere, that solving the problem IS the execution)

I am happy to see they are moving that way but so far I haven't seen any attempts at solving first principle problems.

I love YC don't get me wrong it just doesn't look like it's something they will ever be good at and thats totally fine.

Do you think it's lack of YC seeking them out or lack of startup founders tackling these problems?

There are plenty of startups solving hard and complex problems. The issue is that they're usually not amenable to the Silicon Valley VC model of "sell it to the next biggest fool."

I think it's a lack of synergy between the angel model and the price of solving really big or complex problems.

YC in my understanding is catered at companies who are solving natural next steps at the right time, not necessarily problems with a 5-10 year horizon.

I am always reminded how Interval Research went from 10 years research to market horizon to suddenly 3-4 years.

For all the Silicon Valley is good it it seems to be best at creating relatively obvious solutions for fairly trivial problems.

If more big and complex problems were solved Elon Musk would be the rule not the exception.

This is what's kind of sad about SV these days.

It might drive the digital economy but one might ask in what direction.

The answer is "as many directions as possible"

Hard to say that cloud storage and travel accommodations are not real problems. The solutions created with YC's help have improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

And you're not considering the recent increased YC focus on startups from developing countries. Just from top of mind you have companies selling cheaper solar energy in Mexico, improving online payments in India, lowering interest rates in Africa, treating low-income patients in Central America, etc.

There are dozens of YC companies just getting started that will positively impact the lives of billions of people in the next 10+ years.

I don't think it really is. These ideas have been kicked around for a long time and several companies have attempted at solving them.

I am not talking about execution but about problems as in. Solving the problem is the execution (think cure for cancer)

I am not saying there ren't companies in YC that aren't solving big problems but it's not what they are good at noor what the angel model is good at either IMO.