Item — HN Reader

There are many factors (YC needs to allocate more capital, not founder-led anymore, needs to fill more batches...) etc.

But another one is that the first batch has had 20 years to grow and compound while the rest has had less time to become massive.

I'm not saying YC is perfect now (though it's still great). But I think a simple factor could just be time for many portcos.

2 comments

Or that most of the largest opportunities have been filled and newer companies are aiming at much smaller niches, or to be alternatives to well-established competitors.

Also, in 2005 there wasn't that much of an acquisition ecosystem. I feel like fewer founders back then actually thought about getting acquired and instead shot for building big companies.

You had to go big or your thing would fail, whereas nowadays you can fill a tiny niche and get rich by being acquired by the incumbent you're a complement to.

The era of "any promising startup gets swallowed by big tech" seems over with antitrust, but M&A is still happening.

Agreed, to compare you would have to not just look at current magnitude but rather compare the historical trajectories of growth