Wow. I can't believe I have to explain this.
As I already explained in my previous post, this is simply the only truly useful metric, not selection bias. People care about equity after they succeed, not when they fail. No one sits around crying that they wished they had a larger percentage of nothing. In fact, you know what, I bet pg would be willing to make an agreement with you that after you officially close your company he'll gladly give you that 5-10% back, that way you'll be happy either way.
Go and ask any YC founder who is currently successful, whether its chugging along fine or had any form of exit, I don't think you'll find any of them worrying about those percentage points. The ones who've failed clearly don't care and certainly don't ridiculously blame their failure on YC taking too much of their company. Better yet, they're making use of those same connections and opportunities on the next startup they're working on, and for free this time.
You do, because it's silly. By the same token go and ask any founder who did not take YC funding and was successful. People care about equity well before they succeed. Talk to any investor.
Go and ask any YC founder who is currently successful
Explain to me, again, how this is not selection bias?
Right, I simply said that opinion is absurd and flies in the face of the very idea of running a business like YC. And it is a business, right, we agree on that?
And I'm sure there isn't a single successful YC founder that would disagree
Why on earth would a successful YC founder disagree? They've been successful. This is the definition of selection bias.