[nihaar]

When my co-founders and I were applying to accelerators in 2008, we had been accepted into a Philadelphia based accelerator called DreamIt shortly before our YC interviews. Not knowing if we would get into YC, we accepted with DreamIt as it was an exploding offer. A few weeks later we found that we got accepted by YC. After deliberating it for sometime, we went back to the DreamIt team and told them that we wished to rescind our acceptance. This started a shitstorm with the DreamIt team as they seemed to take this very personally. It was the first year of doing the accelerator and they went as far as threatening to take legal action. Not knowing what to do, we turned to PG and Jessica for help, a bit hesitantly, as we were afraid of what they would say. PG expressed his extreme disappointment with how DreamIt had reacted to this and was supportive of our situation. He send them an email telling them to back off and that this was not an acceptable way to be treating founders.

Just one anecdote out of many of how YC has gone to many lengths to protect founders.

Since that experience, I've realized that it really doesn't do accelerators any good to introduce these conditions in their funding offers. It creates a bad reputation amongst founders in the increasingly competitive field of accelerators. And founders ultimately need to pick based on what they think will have the most impact to their business. Compete on benefits you can offer to founders, not legalese.

[compare]

So many accelerators behave wildly unprofessionally and inappropriately for the space that they're in.

Perhaps all that's needed is more high-visibility guidelines like what YC is doing now. Perhaps we need better platform for evaluating investors from the founders perspective, instead of networks that really only care about evaluating startups.

Either way, the situation seems to be getting worse, with the continued explosion of accelerator programs around the world. I hope we find an effective solution.

[lquist]

So basically you made an agreement with one set of investors and then went back on your word because another, "better" set of investors wanted to put money in? Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't reflect that well on you.

[compare]

The effectiveness of the relationship between investors and startups in SV is built on upon being upstanding and not being overly manipulative. Founder/Investor agreements that are born from the manipulation of unexperienced founders always should be EXPECTED to turn out badly.

There's a child-like expectation that once the deal is signed or agreement is made that it's over. It never is, that's just the beginning. If you're expecting that everything is finalized as soon as an agreement is made, regardless of the conditions, then you're simply bad at business and taking risks that you haven't yet realized.

(Of course this isn't true in Europe. They love taking contracts extremely literally, and their economies suffer enormously for it.)

[pbiggar]

I disagree. If an offer is accepted under duress, can you really expect someone to hold up their side of the bargain?

An equivalent is that you shouldn't expect someone to follow through on a decision they didn't buy into.

[eru]

The founders could always threaten not to work enthusiastically (or basically at all). Nothing the investors can do about that. So the investors are better off taking their money back.

[bruceb]

If DreamIt accepted you then a few weeks later after you had plans to move there pulled their offer in order to accept another team how would you take it? I am not saying I would have not taken the YC admit but I would understand DreamIt being a little pissed.

Of course PG helped you wriggle out of your DreamIt acceptance. He sees you as an investment. Who wouldn't try to protect their investment?