I can think of cases where startups have found no one to invest, and have ended up doing well. This is where something like YC can help, actually; we can tell people candidly whether we think it's the investors who are wrong, or the startup.

You're assuming that you're more likely to be right than other investors.

There's an adjective for that kind of thinking, which I won't use because in context of hn it would be downvote suicide.

And yes, I know you're THE pg, but other investors, like Fred Wilson, John Doerr or Marc Andreessen are also THE investors.

The argument that I would find more persuasive would be that YC can help because it's willing to take more risks on "out there" ideas due to dramatically lower investment in any one startup and higher number of startups it funds.

Did you not see this? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2600286

Why are you more likely to be able to accurately judge a startup than other potential investors?

I have so much more data. I've been watching their trajectory for 4 months, while other investors (especially those that chose not to invest) may only have seen them for a few minutes at Demo Day.

But without something as quirky as the cereal story, you would have rejected them?

No. We liked them as people. The cereal story was just evidence of the qualities we sensed when we met them.

Many investors view a company based on how much of a multiplier it can offer them on their investment. Is this a 2x money maker for me or a 10x? If I'm only interested in the 10x home runs then a 2x company may look like a bad idea to me.

Most investors want to play it safe. YC wants founders to succeed. Sure, there's money in it for them, but that's not why they're doing it.

> we can tell people candidly whether we think it's the investors who are wrong, or the startup.

If YC chooses to invest in an applicant, it probably offers great advice to the start-up. If it chooses not to, would you consider that rejection candid advice that the start-up is wrong?

I got extremely candid advice when I was not selected after interviewing for the w2011 group. It was both unexpected and good feedback.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes we're just not sure. We try to distinguish in the email we send after the interview.

Yet, you (reportedly) weren't fond of the idea, either ...

We weren't. This is a good illustration of why you want to invest based on the founders rather than the idea. The founders we liked immediately.

Also, the idea was different initially. Initially they expected the host always to be there.

I also remember someone talking about airbnb airlifting breakfasts for the guest. That seemed like a weak link.

I am kind of surprised that you didn't buy in the idea. Couchsurfing.org has been very successful

"Because otherwise who will cook the breakfast???", Brian asked once...

Yet that candid advice didn't break through to someone like Fred Wilson. I wonder if more visionary ideas are harder for investors to truly recognize with their templates of "experience".

Ebay for Spaces is a very clever shorthand, but it seems just abstract enough to question without a concrete instance. Now, of course, it is one of those brilliant with hindsight instances that seem easy but require immense dedication.

I think it matters who tells you it's a stupid idea. If it's investors, you can safely ignore them; they aren't looking for what you're selling anyway. If it's potential customers, however, you probably have a problem.

In AirBnB's case, they had already validated the market. They had their first 3 customers before they even thought it could be a business. If people are willing to pay you money for your idea, it really doesn't matter what investors think.