[zaguios]

I applied for the last YC batch and got rejected. The interview was itself was completely outside of all the expectations that I had. I had done a bunch of preparation work doing practice interviews with YC alums as well as friends. Some of them asked the standard YC interview questions while others went off on tangents, but I felt I had really strong and clear answers to most of the questions they were likely to ask.

Unfortunately when I got into the interview, by the time they had asked the third question it was clear they had completely misinterpreted what I was doing. I knew in less than a minute into the interview that there was no chance I would be accepted. What I should have done was try to stop the interview and completely reframe what I was doing in a different context so they could more clearly understand. However, the 10 minutes goes by so quickly. The interview started and ended before I came to that realization (I did however try to interject at the last 30 seconds with some key points, but by that point it was too little too late).

I believe my situation was an exception to what normally happens given the nature of my company, but it was really disappointing to feel like I never got the chance to explain the unique insights I had into the space, how the company was managing such insane growth, and the vision for the future.

[plehoux]

Same with us at last year at missiveapp.com, the interview was relaxed, still could not articulate what we were doing based on the questions. They even talked about some of our metrics at the end, those were wrong, like from the previous time we applied.

We were rejected, the reason: No market.

To YC's defense... they interview so many incredible founders.

We grew between 10% and 30% every months since. So in the end all good.

Our team was also rejected in 2013 with conferencebadge.com... that time we bombed the interview and were really bad. The business has now grown to 7 figures a year.

Both businesses are still managed by our small team of 3 co-founders and one employee and are quite successful. We own 100%.

What if we would have made the cut... who knows...

[stenlix]

Just wondering, in what ways are you different from Front (I’m not too familiar with the space)?

[andai]

> Swifts have no direct connection to any form of currency and are not backed by anything. Swifts are only worth what other people are willing to pay for them. There is no guarantee about the strength of Swifts in relation to any other currency.

This is the opposite of selling your product (I'm not sure if a word exists for that). Which is a shame because the idea sounds really cool.

[zaguios]

This is meant as more of a disclaimer than a selling point. A small portion of users sign up, collect their Swifts and are then confused why they can't directly withdraw them in USD. We can probably change the language to be more positive while still conveying that point though.

[NoB4Mouth]

Dude, kudos for the project. You need some helping hands to put across your ideas and message in a simple and clear English language. If you don't mind reach out to me on telegram at sammydeeknight i can help. By the way if you don't mind changing the name of the product too... 'swift' could be easily confused with the Swift language...

[rajacombinator]

It’s a mildly interesting idea but faces an obvious chicken and egg problem that you’ve just punted on so far. Without demonstrably solving or having a plan to solve it (eg. why anyone would trade usd or btc for swifts), it’s uninvestible. UBI hype is likely the only reason you got an interview.

[heshamg]

What did they mention the reason was in your rejection email? If you don't mind sharing that of course :)

[zaguios]

Here is the rejection email:

"Unfortunately, we've decided not to fund SwiftDemand. We were really impressed with the number of participants you have on the platform and the fact that people are doing transactions. However we struggled to convince ourselves that there was an underlying big business here. If this is going to be something that is economically meaningful to people to allow them to live on it, then it would be hard to for this to also be a billion dollar company and would probably be better suited to a non-profit."

The email shows two big misunderstandings in how SwiftDemand works. It's on me for not temporarily taking control of the interview once I realized the lens they were viewing SwiftDemand through.

[sonnyblarney]

Your website is a little confusing, and it takes a little reading to characterize what exactly are doing. It's not bad though.

But your idea is bold and worth trying, definitely. Bravo on that. I find it odd that YC did not pick you up on that alone.

I can also see why you might struggle to communicate it.

I have some small points if you care to take them, they are just examples of some tweaking, for what it's worth:

Small thing for your '1 liner' statement instead of saying 'Swift is an attempt at' - drop the word 'attempt'. Also it could be more clear:

"Swift is a digital basic income for everyone"

   ... is a little more concise, it's very bold but doesn't sound arrogant either.

Three sentence explainer:

"Swift is a digital currency that we issue in the same quantity, to everyone who signs up, at the same rate, in perpetuity.

Swift is not backed by anything (so it's only worth what people attribute to it), but over time, as people find consequence, we hope that it will develop material value.

One day, with your help, we hope to disintermediate authoritarian central banking systems which favour one economic class over others, and to provide subsistence for everyone, by everyone."

Where you can replace the last sentence with something else, if you want, but it's nice to end with a hint of a bold vision. That I think explains it, and also has hints of boldness and universality, with a little 'populist antagonism' towards 'those evil bankers' without being crude, i.e. more aspirational, and it doesn't sound arrogant.

You can get into the 'digital now, crypto later' thing in the next para or whatever, that's obviously important (crypto crowds will be early buyers) but not essential.

Anyhow, just my two cents.

It's a great idea though. It's worth a try. Good luck with that.

[zaguios]

Thanks for the feedback!

SwiftDemand is a fairly radical concept so initially I was worried that making claims too bold could come off as arrogant, but since we have now gained a lot more traction we should definitely revisit the copy on the landing page.

I like the conciseness of the 1 liner you proposed, the three sentence explainer is great as well, but we aren't necessarily looking to disintermediate the banking system, but rather to become a global currency that focuses on social economic good in the form of UBI.

A huge portion of our users are really focused on the crypto aspect of what we're doing. As we continue to gain a broader appeal we will likely de-emphasize the crypto part.

The struggle to communicate it was a problem with how YC perceives UBI due to their involvement in UBI research. They grasped the concept quickly, but the questions they asked were targeted primarily at whether or not it would be enough to actually support people, as well as my thoughts on current UBI initiatives rather than the market opportunity and underlying business. In short, they saw it as a charity and didn't dig deeper into the revenue model or vision.

Thanks again for your comments.