Supabase, an open-source alternative to Firebase, has raised $200 million in Series D funding, bringing its valuation to $2 billion. This latest round, led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, will fuel the company's growth as it aims to build the best developer experience for Postgres. Supabase offers a suite of tools including a database, authentication, edge functions, and storage, all based on open-source technologies. The company plans to use the funding to expand its team and further develop its platform, focusing on enterprise-grade features and improving the developer experience.
Jason Bosco's post celebrates the milestone of his company, SendGrid, achieving profitability instead of relying on venture capital funding. He emphasizes the deliberate choice to prioritize building a sustainable and profitable business from the ground up, highlighting the benefits of controlling their own destiny and focusing on customer needs. This approach, while potentially slower in terms of rapid scaling, allowed them to build a stronger foundation and ultimately led to a more rewarding outcome in the long run. The post implicitly contrasts the often pressured, growth-at-all-costs mentality of VC-backed startups with SendGrid's more measured, organic path to success.
HN commenters largely discussed the merits and drawbacks of bootstrapping vs. VC funding. Several pointed out the inherent bias in Jason Bosco's original tweet, noting that he's incentivized to promote bootstrapping as a founder of a bootstrapped company. Others argued that profitability allows for more control and long-term vision, while VC funding enables faster growth, albeit with potential pressure to prioritize investor returns over other goals. Some users shared personal experiences with both models, highlighting the trade-offs involved. A few questioned the longevity of Bosco's "forever company" aspiration in a constantly evolving market. The idea of "ramen profitable," where founders earn just enough to survive, was also discussed as a viable alternative to both VC funding and robust profitability.
Vicki Boykis reflects on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News, observing how their influence has shifted the tech landscape. Initially fostering a scrappy, builder-focused community, YC/HN evolved alongside the industry, becoming increasingly intertwined with venture capital and prioritizing scale and profitability. This shift, driven by the pursuit of ever-larger funding rounds and exits, has led to a decline in the original hacker ethos, with less emphasis on individual projects and more on market dominance. While acknowledging the positive aspects of YC/HN's legacy, Boykis expresses concern about the homogenization of tech culture and the potential stifling of truly innovative, independent projects due to the pervasive focus on VC-backed growth. She concludes by pondering the future of online communities and their ability to maintain their initial spirit in the face of commercial pressures.
Hacker News users discuss Vicki Boykis's blog post reflecting on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News. Several commenters express nostalgia for the earlier days of both, lamenting the perceived shift from a focus on truly disruptive startups to more conventional, less technically innovative ventures. Some discuss the increasing difficulty of getting into YC and the changing landscape of the startup world. The "YC application industrial complex" and the prevalence of AI-focused startups are recurring themes. Some users also critique Boykis's perspective, arguing that her criticisms are overly focused on consumer-facing companies and don't fully appreciate the B2B SaaS landscape. A few point out that YC has always funded a broad range of startups, and the perception of a decline may be due to individual biases.
The dot-com bubble burst was a complex event triggered by a confluence of factors. Overly optimistic speculation, fueled by the rapid growth of the internet and venture capital, drove valuations of internet companies to unsustainable levels, despite many lacking viable business models or proven profitability. This speculative frenzy led to a massive influx of investment in unproven companies, creating an environment ripe for collapse. When the market finally corrected, beginning in March 2000, it triggered a chain reaction. Investors panicked, withdrawing funds, and companies, unable to secure further funding, folded. The crash exposed the fragility of the market, wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization and leaving many investors and employees with significant losses. While some companies survived and eventually thrived, the burst served as a harsh lesson about the dangers of speculative bubbles and the importance of sound business fundamentals.
HN commenters discuss the lasting impact of the dot-com bubble, with several noting how it laid the groundwork for today's tech giants like Google and Amazon. Some highlight the brutal reality of the bust, emphasizing the significant job losses and the destruction of capital. Others reflect on the speculative frenzy of the time, recalling inflated valuations and questionable business models. One commenter contrasts the bubble with the 2008 financial crisis, arguing the dot-com crash had a more positive long-term impact by clearing the way for genuine innovation. The difficulty of predicting market bubbles is also a recurring theme, with several users acknowledging how easy it is to get caught up in the hype. A few commenters share personal anecdotes from the period, providing firsthand accounts of the boom and subsequent bust.
The tech industry's period of abundant capital and unconstrained growth has ended. Companies are now prioritizing profitability over growth at all costs, leading to widespread layoffs, hiring freezes, and a shift in focus towards efficiency. This change is driven by macroeconomic factors like rising interest rates and inflation, as well as a correction after years of unsustainable valuations and practices. While this signifies a more challenging environment, particularly for startups reliant on venture capital, it also marks a return to fundamentals and a focus on building sustainable businesses with strong unit economics. The author suggests this new era favors experienced operators and companies building essential products, while speculative ventures will struggle.
HN users largely agree with the premise that the "good times" of easy VC money and hypergrowth are over in the tech industry. Several commenters point to specific examples of companies rescinding offers, implementing hiring freezes, and laying off employees as evidence. Some discuss the cyclical nature of the tech industry and predict a return to a focus on fundamentals, profitability, and sustainable growth. A few express skepticism, arguing that while some froth may be gone, truly innovative companies will continue to thrive. Several also discuss the impact on employee compensation and expectations, suggesting a shift away from inflated salaries and perks. A common thread is the idea that this correction is a healthy and necessary adjustment after a period of excess.
Garry Tan celebrates Y Combinator's 20th birthday, reflecting on its evolution from a summer program offering $11,000 and ramen to a global institution supporting thousands of founders. He emphasizes YC's consistent mission of helping ambitious builders create the future and expresses gratitude to the founders, alumni, partners, and staff who have contributed to its success over two decades. Tan also looks forward to the future, highlighting YC's continued commitment to supporting founders at all stages, from idea to IPO.
The Hacker News comments on the "Happy 20th Birthday, Y Combinator" post largely express congratulations and fond memories of YC's earlier days. Several commenters reminisce about the smaller, more intimate nature of early batches and the evolution of the program over time. Some discuss the impact YC has had on the startup ecosystem, attributing its success to its simple yet effective model. A few express skepticism about the long-term sustainability of the accelerator model or criticize YC's shift towards larger, later-stage companies. There's also a thread discussing the origins of the "Y Combinator" name, referencing its mathematical and functional programming roots. Overall, the sentiment is positive and celebratory, reflecting on YC's significant influence on the tech world.
Reflection AI, a startup focused on developing "superintelligence" – AI systems significantly exceeding human capabilities – has launched with $130 million in funding. The company, founded by a team with experience at Google, DeepMind, and OpenAI, aims to build AI that can solve complex problems and accelerate scientific discovery. While details about its specific approach are scarce, Reflection AI emphasizes safety and ethical considerations in its development process, claiming a focus on aligning its superintelligence with human values.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of Reflection AI's claims of building "superintelligence," viewing the term as hype and questioning the company's ability to deliver on such a lofty goal. Several commenters point out the lack of a clear definition of superintelligence and express concern that the large funding round might be premature given the nascent stage of the technology. Others criticize the website's vague language and the focus on marketing over technical details. Some users discuss the potential dangers of superintelligence, while others debate the ethical implications of pursuing such technology. A few commenters express cautious optimism, suggesting that while "superintelligence" might be overstated, the company could still contribute to advancements in AI.
Billionaire Mark Cuban has offered to fund former employees of 18F, a federal technology and design consultancy that saw its budget drastically cut and staff laid off. Cuban's offer aims to enable these individuals to continue working on their existing civic tech projects, though the specifics of the funding mechanism and project selection remain unclear. He expressed interest in projects focused on improving government efficiency and transparency, ultimately seeking to bridge the gap left by 18F's downsizing and ensure valuable public service work continues.
Hacker News commenters were generally skeptical of Cuban's offer to fund former 18F employees. Some questioned his motives, suggesting it was a publicity stunt or a way to gain access to government talent. Others debated the effectiveness of 18F and government-led tech initiatives in general. Several commenters expressed concern about the implications of private funding for public services, raising issues of potential conflicts of interest and the precedent it could set. A few commenters were more positive, viewing Cuban's offer as a potential solution to a funding gap and a way to retain valuable talent. Some also discussed the challenges of government bureaucracy and the potential benefits of a more agile, privately-funded approach.
The original poster is seeking venture capital funds that prioritize ethical considerations alongside financial returns. They are specifically interested in funds that actively avoid investing in companies contributing to societal harms like environmental damage, exploitation, or addiction. They're looking for recommendations of VCs with a demonstrably strong commitment to ethical investing, potentially including impact investing funds or those with publicly stated ethical guidelines.
The Hacker News comments on "Ask HN: Ethical VC Funds?" express skepticism about the existence of truly "ethical" VCs. Many commenters argue that the fundamental nature of venture capital, which seeks maximum returns, is inherently at odds with ethical considerations. Some suggest that impact investing might be a closer fit for the OP's goals, while others point out the difficulty of defining "ethical" in a universally accepted way. Several commenters mention specific funds or strategies that incorporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors, but acknowledge that these are often more about risk mitigation and public image than genuine ethical concerns. A few commenters offer more cynical takes, suggesting that "ethical VC" is primarily a marketing tactic. Overall, the consensus leans towards pragmatism, with many suggesting the OP focus on finding VCs whose values align with their own, rather than searching for a mythical perfectly ethical fund.
Paul Graham argues that the primary way people get rich now is by creating wealth, specifically through starting or joining early-stage startups. This contrasts with older models of wealth acquisition like inheritance or rent-seeking. Building a successful company, particularly in technology, allows founders and early employees to own equity that appreciates significantly as the company grows. This wealth creation is driven by building things people want, leveraging technology for scale, and operating within a relatively open market where new companies can compete with established ones. This model is distinct from merely getting a high-paying job, which provides a good income but rarely leads to substantial wealth creation in the same way equity ownership can.
Hacker News users discussed Paul Graham's essay on contemporary wealth creation, largely agreeing with his premise that starting a startup is the most likely path to significant riches. Some commenters pointed out nuances, like the importance of equity versus salary, and the role of luck and timing. Several highlighted the increasing difficulty of bootstrapping due to the prevalence of venture capital, while others debated the societal implications of wealth concentration through startups. A few challenged Graham's focus on tech, suggesting alternative routes like real estate or skilled trades, albeit with potentially lower ceilings. The thread also explored the tension between pursuing wealth and other life goals, with some arguing that focusing solely on riches can be counterproductive.
After their startup failed, the founder launched VcSubsidized.com to sell off the remaining inventory. The website's tongue-in-cheek name acknowledges the venture capital funding that allowed for the initial product creation, now being recouped through discounted sales. The products themselves, primarily blankets and pillows made with natural materials like alpaca and cashmere, are presented with straightforward descriptions and high-quality photos. The site's simple design and the founder's transparent explanation of the startup's demise contribute to a sense of authenticity.
HN commenters largely found the VCSubsidized.com site humorous and appreciated the creator's entrepreneurial spirit and marketing savvy. Some questioned the longevity of the domain name's availability given its potentially controversial nature. Others discussed the prevalence of subsidized goods and services in the startup ecosystem, with some pointing out that the practice isn't inherently negative and can benefit consumers. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes of acquiring and reselling goods from failed startups. The overall sentiment was positive, with the project viewed as a clever commentary on startup culture.
Steve Jurvetson, renowned venture capitalist and space enthusiast, discusses the accelerating progress in space exploration and its implications. He highlights SpaceX's monumental advancements, particularly with Starship, predicting it will dramatically lower launch costs and open up unprecedented possibilities for space-based industries, research, and planetary colonization. Jurvetson also emphasizes the burgeoning private space sector and its potential to revolutionize our relationship with the cosmos, including asteroid mining, space-based solar power, and manufacturing. He touches upon the philosophical and ethical considerations of expanding beyond Earth, emphasizing the importance of stewardship and responsible exploration as humanity ventures into the "final frontier."
Hacker News users discuss Steve Jurvetson's essay primarily focusing on his optimism about the future. Several commenters express skepticism about Jurvetson's rosy predictions, particularly regarding space colonization and the feasibility of asteroid mining. Some challenge his technological optimism as naive, citing the complexities and limitations of current technology. Others find his focus on space escapism distracting from more pressing terrestrial issues like climate change and inequality. A few commenters appreciate Jurvetson's enthusiasm and long-term perspective, but the general sentiment leans towards cautious pragmatism, questioning the practicality and ethical implications of his vision. Some debate the economic viability of asteroid mining and the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities through space ventures.
Token Security, a cybersecurity startup focused on protecting "machine identities" (like API keys and digital certificates used by software and devices), has raised $20 million in funding. The company aims to combat the growing threat of hackers exploiting these often overlooked credentials, which are increasingly targeted as a gateway to sensitive data and systems. Their platform helps organizations manage and secure these machine identities, reducing the risk of breaches and unauthorized access.
HN commenters discuss the increasing attack surface of machine identities, echoing the article's concern. Some question the novelty of the problem, pointing out that managing server certificates and keys has always been a security concern. Others express skepticism towards Token Security's approach, suggesting that complexity in security solutions often introduces new vulnerabilities. The most compelling comments highlight the difficulty of managing machine identities at scale in modern cloud-native environments, where ephemeral workloads and automated deployments exacerbate the existing challenges. There's also discussion around the need for better tooling and automation to address this growing security gap.
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.
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.
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.
The author recounts a brief, somewhat awkward encounter with Paul Graham at a coffee shop. They nervously approached Graham, introduced themselves as a fan of Hacker News, and mentioned their own startup idea. Graham responded politely but curtly, asking about the idea. After a mumbled explanation, Graham offered a generic piece of advice about focusing on users, then disengaged to rejoin his companions. The author was left feeling slightly deflated, realizing their pitch was underdeveloped and the interaction ultimately uneventful, despite the initial excitement of meeting a revered figure.
HN commenters largely appreciated the author's simple, unpretentious anecdote about meeting Paul Graham. Several noted the positive, down-to-earth impression Graham made, reinforcing his public persona. Some discussed Graham's influence and impact on the startup world, with one commenter sharing a similar experience of a brief but memorable interaction. A few comments questioned the significance of such a short encounter, while others found it relatable and heartwarming. The overall sentiment leaned towards finding the story charming and a pleasant reminder of the human side of even highly successful figures.
Summary of Comments ( 126 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43763225
Hacker News commenters discuss Supabase's impressive fundraising round, with some expressing excitement about its potential to disrupt the cloud market and become a viable Firebase alternative. Skepticism arises around the high valuation and whether Supabase can truly differentiate itself long-term, especially given the competitive landscape. Several commenters question the sustainability of its open-source approach and the potential challenges of scaling while remaining developer-friendly. Others delve into specific technical aspects, comparing Supabase's features and performance to existing solutions and pondering its long-term strategy for handling edge cases and complex deployments. A few highlight the rapid growth and strong community as positive indicators, while others caution against over-hyping the platform and emphasize the need for continued execution.
The Hacker News post discussing Supabase's $200M Series D funding round at a $2B valuation generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on Supabase's business model, open-source nature, and comparisons to other database solutions.
Several commenters questioned Supabase's path to profitability, particularly given its open-source core. One commenter wondered how Supabase plans to monetize its open-source offerings, pointing out that simply offering hosting services might not be enough to sustain a $2B valuation. They expressed concern about the long-term viability of a business relying heavily on open-source components. Another commenter echoed this concern, suggesting that the abundance of open-source alternatives in the database space could make it challenging for Supabase to differentiate itself and generate substantial revenue.
A recurring theme was the comparison of Supabase to Firebase. Some commenters highlighted Supabase's positioning as an open-source alternative to Firebase, emphasizing the benefits of avoiding vendor lock-in. They appreciated the flexibility and control that Supabase offers compared to Firebase's closed-source nature. One user, apparently familiar with both platforms, described Supabase as offering a superior developer experience, particularly praising its intuitive interface and ease of use.
There was also discussion about the complexities of building and scaling database solutions. One commenter, identifying as a database engineer, acknowledged the inherent challenges of creating a robust and scalable database system. They expressed skepticism about Supabase's ability to compete with established players in the market long-term, suggesting that the technical hurdles involved in building and maintaining a high-performance database are significant.
Furthermore, there was some debate about the valuation itself. Some commenters questioned whether a $2B valuation was justified, given the competitive landscape and the challenges inherent in the database market. However, others pointed to the rapid growth and popularity of Supabase as potential justification for the high valuation.
Finally, a few commenters shared their positive experiences with Supabase, praising its ease of use and developer-friendly features. They highlighted the speed and efficiency of the platform, suggesting it is a viable alternative to traditional database solutions. One user specifically mentioned using Supabase for hobby projects, suggesting its accessibility and ease of setup make it appealing to a wider range of developers beyond just enterprise users.