quite shocked this was down-voted to the ground. i wish people would express themselves outside of pressing a button.
maybe it was just me but i thought the tone of the blog post was negative, or perhaps it was just because he opened by stating ycom lacked transparency and it came off accusatory.
furthermore, i understand the importance of performance metrics but I always felt like ycom's purpose was more altruistic than just being about the return. (i'm a realist, i understand bills need to be paid and money to reinvest, but yeah...)
Partly I was playing devil's advocate, I think YC do a great job overall (although I do think a little more transparency on failures would be good for everyone), but it is a criticism I've heard repeatedly.
As I do point out in my conclusion YC do look like they do much better than angel investors and provide real "extra value".
furthermore, i understand the importance of performance metrics but I always felt like ycom's purpose was more altruistic than just being about the return. (i'm a realist, i understand bills need to be paid and money to reinvest, but yeah...)