Do many startups really do that? I haven't seen much evidence of that, actually.

In the chat room someone posted a few nights ago, there were more than a few people who hinted at that being the case for them and their companies. I'd consider any number > 0 to be "too many".

I guess they see validation from YC as an absolute guarantee that they'll reach their end goal, or even as the end goal itself. Really, it's neither. There's a mountain of evidence showing that startups face cold, dark, and lonely times whether they're big or small, YC-validated or obscure, well-funded or strapped for cash. If you can't survive without YC, you probably can't survive with YC.

I've been rejected 2 or 3 times now, and I'm still going at it.

Any lessons you can share after your 2nd or 3rd time? What would you have done differently?

Don't apply while you're still in school, and don't apply late haha. Sorry, nothing too insightful.

I personally know of two teams who were rejected from YC and ended up not working on the startup because of it.

I know of one other that probably would have fallen apart had they not been accepted.

It is really disingenuous on their part. There is no foolproof way to filter it, though an suggestion would be that those with little or no product would be more likely to throw everything away upon rejection.

I guess it's an assumption, but I remember seeing lots of posts awhile back basically complaining that it was time to "move on" because of YC rejection.

There are a few situations where getting accepted into YC is really the only chance a founding team has. A combination of young kids with financial hardship and being new to the tech market. They have no connections to work, no contracting jobs to support themselves with, and taking a full-time job is a 1-2 two year commitment.

Other seed funding providers are popping up, sure but if you're short on money you might not have time to wait for their next deadline.

They don't equate it to failing, just to not succeeding.