The website "YC Graveyard" catalogs 821 Y Combinator-backed startups that are considered inactive, meaning they appear to be defunct, acquired for a small sum (acqui-hire), or simply operating far below expectations. This list, while not official or exhaustive, aims to provide a perspective on the realities of startup success, highlighting that even with the support of a prestigious accelerator like YC, a significant number of ventures don't achieve widespread recognition or significant scale. The site offers a searchable database of these companies, including their YC batch and a brief description of their intended product or service.
Y Combinator (YC) announced their X25 batch, marking a return to pre-pandemic batch sizes with increased applicant capacity. This larger batch reflects growing interest in YC and a commitment to supporting more startups. Applications for X25, the Spring 2025 batch, open on November 27th, 2024 and close on January 8th, 2025. Selected companies will participate in the core YC program, receiving funding, mentorship, and resources. YC is particularly interested in AI, biotech, hard tech, and developer tools, although they welcome applications from all sectors. They emphasize their focus on global founders and the importance of the YC network for long-term success.
HN commenters largely expressed skepticism and criticism of YC's x25 program. Several questioned the program's value proposition, arguing that a 0.5% equity stake for $500k is a poor deal compared to alternative funding options, especially given the dilution from future rounds. Others doubted the program's ability to significantly accelerate growth for already successful companies, suggesting that the networking and mentorship aspects are less crucial at this stage. Some criticized YC for seemingly shifting focus away from early-stage startups, potentially signaling a bubble or desperation for returns. A few commenters, however, saw potential benefits, particularly for international companies seeking access to the US market and YC's network. Some also raised the point that YC's brand and resources might be particularly valuable for companies in highly regulated or difficult-to-navigate industries.
Summary of Comments ( 134 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42828198
Hacker News users discuss the YC Graveyard, expressing skepticism about its methodology and usefulness. Several commenters point out that the site's definition of "inactive" is overly broad, including companies that may have been acquired, pivoted, or simply operate under a different name. They argue that simply not having a website doesn't equate to failure. Some suggest the list could be valuable with improved filtering and more accurate data, including exit information. Others find the project inherently flawed, dismissing it as merely a "curiosity." A few commenters question the motivation behind the project and its potential negative impact on the startup ecosystem.
The Hacker News post titled "YC Graveyard: 821 inactive Y Combinator startups" sparked a discussion with several interesting comments. Many commenters focused on the inherent risk involved in startups, emphasizing that a high failure rate is expected, even for companies that have received the prestigious Y Combinator backing.
One compelling comment pointed out the difference between "inactive" and "failed". The commenter argued that the term "graveyard" and "inactive" might be misleading. Some of these companies might have been acquired, pivoted into different entities, or simply operating in stealth mode. They suggested a more nuanced categorization would offer a more accurate picture of the YC portfolio's performance. This perspective challenges the initial framing of the post, prompting a more critical evaluation of the data presented.
Another commenter highlighted the survivorship bias inherent in focusing only on the successful YC companies. They suggested that looking at the "graveyard" offers a valuable learning opportunity for aspiring entrepreneurs. Understanding why these startups failed could provide insights and prevent others from making similar mistakes.
Several comments discussed the methodology used to determine whether a startup is "inactive." Some pointed out the difficulty in accurately assessing the status of private companies, especially given the lack of publicly available information. This raises questions about the reliability of the data presented in the linked website.
Some users discussed specific examples of companies listed in the "graveyard," offering anecdotes and inside information about their fates. These comments added a more personal touch to the discussion, illustrating the real-world impact of startup failure.
A few commenters questioned the motivation behind creating the YC Graveyard website. Speculation ranged from genuine curiosity to more cynical motives like schadenfreude or attempting to profit from the data.
Finally, some comments steered the conversation toward broader discussions about the startup ecosystem. Topics included the role of venture capital, the challenges of scaling a business, and the importance of adaptability in the face of changing market conditions.
Overall, the comments section provides a multifaceted perspective on the topic of startup failure within the context of the Y Combinator program. While the initial post might suggest a negative narrative, the comments offer a more balanced view, emphasizing the inherent risks of entrepreneurship, the importance of learning from failures, and the need for careful interpretation of data.