This article is rather thin on numbers or tangible benefits that actually developed because of joining YC as a "later stage" company. I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made that joining YC late is a good thing, I just don't think this essay does that.
Descriptions of how YC is more pleasant as a late-stage company are not surprising. Of course it would be, but did YOU derive that much benefit that you couldn't have achieved on your own?
Could the team not have derived the same benefit by simply holding up for 3 months on their own, and getting their investors/board to be actively involved during that time as a sounding board?
The only real benefit I see being expounded is the connections YC offers for securing a series A. However, I'm skeptical that a solid business with pre-existing good connections (via their current investors and board) couldn't secure a reasonable series A without sacrificing 7% of their company. Simple arithmetic dictates that YC's value-prop needs to be amazing to justify sacrificing 7% in exchange for a more optimal series A.
Descriptions of how YC is more pleasant as a late-stage company are not surprising. Of course it would be, but did YOU derive that much benefit that you couldn't have achieved on your own?
Could the team not have derived the same benefit by simply holding up for 3 months on their own, and getting their investors/board to be actively involved during that time as a sounding board?
The only real benefit I see being expounded is the connections YC offers for securing a series A. However, I'm skeptical that a solid business with pre-existing good connections (via their current investors and board) couldn't secure a reasonable series A without sacrificing 7% of their company. Simple arithmetic dictates that YC's value-prop needs to be amazing to justify sacrificing 7% in exchange for a more optimal series A.