I am more surprised that he wanted to go through YC. I can understand the appeal of YC for the inexperienced and unconnected, but this is like Sam or Jessica deciding to start a new startup and then joining a YC cohort.

Edit. Anyone want to explain why he would want to be part of YC? What can he possibly get out of YC for the equity expended?

Isn't that the definition of a conflict of interest? Or am I reading this wrong?

An allegation that there is favoritism among the closed off society of YC elites? I'm astonished, astonished, I say!

Favoritism?

It is a lot easier to vet someone you have worked with extensively, or if someone you trust gives a recommendation. It isn't like there is some secret society -- it is simply the way the world works.

Those are extra bits of information that go into the equation and they happen to count for a lot. I don't really see a problem with it.

Why wouldn't they give extra weight to those bits of information?

Also, this happens all of the time with positions across the board in startups/companies. If I am a senior engineer somewhere, and we are hiring and the company thinks I have good judgement... of course they are going to take my recommendations of candidates more seriously than someone off the street.

Why? YC partners go on to start companies. And it's not uncommon for a founder to raise money from a VC firm they worked at in the past.

Ycombinator insists that being part of their in-crowd does not warrant special treatment. It would have been more appropriate to find funding elsewhere.

No, it wouldn't. It's exceedingly common for companies to raise money from places that have invested in the founder before. What YC's policy is saying is that you do not get a bonus over a better qualified founder by being in the YC network. Again, the incentives for YC align with choosing the best investments. What does YC get by inappropriately giving someone money who doesn't deserve it? Nothing.

What is the conflict of interest?

Being a partner at YC is certainly a unique qualifier that would basically guarantee acceptance. There is nothing wrong with that. It is awesome, in fact.

Being a partner do you really need the startup 'help'? Don't you already have all the connections you need?

If you see a $100 bill on the ground. Would you not pick it up?

*edit cuz i'm bda at spelling

Exactly, why give up that much equity if you already have the connections and benefits of being a YC partner?

Well, it could also mean that someone else who isn't a YC partner was rejected to let him in. Of course, I don't know whether or not that is the case, but this is where a conflict of interest could potentially arise from.

He was a YC partner. He no longer is. And there's a difference between an equity partner and other types of partners. But again, YC is incentivized to let in companies they believe will deliver the most total value to the YC portfolio, so admitting Luke at the expense of another founder who was better qualified is directly contrary to their interests. Also, the YC batch sizes aren't fixed, and they have wiggle room. To avoid the conflict, they could just admit one additional startup who would have otherwise been cut.

That would make sense. Again, I'm not familiar with how the YC selection process works, so it's just speculation.

But it still seems kind of strange to be honest.

We don't fund a fixed number of startups.

You are alleging bias, not a conflict of interest.

YC accepted into their program as a founder someone who was a partner. Does that really sound like bias to you? If a former professor at a university applied to be a grad student, would you accuse the university of a conflict of interest?

Firstly, other comments have disproven my claim already as I was under the assumption that YC accepted a fixed number of startups per batch.

> You are alleging bias, not a conflict of interest.

I'm not sure I understand the difference.

> YC accepted into their program as a founder someone who was a partner. Does that really sound like bias to you?

Yes, if and only if the decision resulted in another equally strong application being rejected, either directly or indirectly.

> If a former professor at a university applied to be a grad student, would you accuse the university of a conflict of interest?

Perhaps, because the committee that decides whether or not to accept a student consists of professors who likely know the former professor, which will likely introduce bias (positive or negative).

IIRC the exact number of startup that are founded is not fixed, they have some approximate idea but they found whatever they think is promising enough. So they didn't fill an slot in a fixed amount of startups.

Well, at this level, no not really...

However, you could make a stretch connection between this and Dick Cheney if you were trying:

1. take a job that allows you to setup infra and policy for a certain type of relationship

2. foster the field for companies to take advantage of said infra and policies

3. leave to work at company to benefit from said setup...

I doubt thats what is going on here - but it has precedence in politics quite often.

YC is a private corporation, they can fund anyone they want. It's not like a public office.

The mistake you're making is similar to the one where right-wing conspiracy theorists argue that getting censored by Twitter is a First Amendment violation. It isn't because Twitter is not part of the government.

Not saying you're wrong about this specific case, but I don't think the term "conflict of interest" is exclusive to the government. For (a somewhat vague) example, if I recommended my friend to a position at the company I worked for, "conflict of interest" would be an accurate descriptor for me being the one who interviews him for the position.

Sounds more to me like an agreement of interest ;-)

How is it a conflict of interest? They are all interested in making money... It isn't like he was a public official and decided he was going to give himself tax money.

It is also a private company and can do what it wants in this regard.

The headline is clickbait, you say?