Founders and applicants, what did you actually have before applying to YC, SPC, EF, a16z, NVIDIA Inception, or similar programs? ( i will not promote)

Post original

I’m trying to understand how these founder networks / accelerators actually work in real life, not just from the marketing pages. TL;DR: For founders who got into YC, South Park Commons, Entrepreneur First, a16z, NVIDIA Inception, Alchemist, AWS/CrowdStrike/NVIDIA, or similar programs: what did you actually have before applying? Product, prototype, users, revenue, cofounder, architecture/system design, strong founder profile, or just a serious problem + rough direction? Also curious how realistic these programs are for non-US founders, idea-stage founders, or people with strong theory/architecture but weak practical implementation. For anyone who went through YC, South Park Commons, Entrepreneur First, NVIDIA Inception, Alchemist, AWS/CrowdStrike/NVIDIA, or similar programs: What stage were you actually at when you applied / got accepted? Did you already have: a working product? a prototype or MVP? users? revenue? a cofounder/team? a pitch deck? technical architecture / system design? only a strong idea and problem statement? mostly theory, but not enough resources/equipment/technical help to fully build it yet? I’m especially curious about the “idea vs product” part. Like, did you go in with something already built, or did you go in with a serious problem, a proposed solution, and founder conviction? A lot of these programs say they support or fund founders at the pre-idea or pre-product stage. How valid is that in practice? Did anyone actually get accepted with little more than a strong founder profile, a problem they wanted to solve, and a rough direction? Or is there usually an unstated expectation that you already have a prototype, technical validation, users, or some kind of traction? And what about the middle ground? If you had a rough product, a pretty bad MVP, or a weak implementation, but an exceptionally strong blueprint, architecture, roadmap, or vision for how the whole thing would work at scale, did that help? Do these programs care more about the quality of the current product, or the quality of the thinking behind it? Also, for founders outside the US: did anyone apply from outside the States and actually get accepted? is it realistic if you’re not already in SF / US / Europe? do these programs care where you are based? did visa / relocation / in-person requirements become an issue? can you get accepted if the idea is strong but the practical side is still weak because you lack equipment, a technical cofounder, funding, or access to the right environment? I’m also wondering what these programs actually helped with. Did they help you with: finding a cofounder? understanding the market? technical direction? building the MVP? getting design partners? getting early users? investor access? enterprise/customer intros? credibility? fundraising? hiring? just forcing speed and focus? And on the other side: what was overhyped? what was not as useful as expected? did you give up equity too early? did the program push you in a direction you didn’t actually want? did it help long-term, or mostly just during the batch? would you do it again? One more thing I’m trying to understand: If you’re a founder with a serious idea, but there are areas you don’t know how to implement yet, do you try to work your way into these networks first? Or is it better to separately contact founders, advisors, technical people, design partners, and investors before applying? Basically: what did you have before you went in, what did you present, and what did the program actually change for you? Not asking for prestige answers. I’m asking for the real Raw version from people who experienced it.   submitted by   /u/devil_ozz [link]   [comments]