In 2013 I wrote to potential Coinbase Series A investors: "All the Bitcoins in the world today are worth about $300M—up 400% in the last year. With Coinbase at the forefront, I think this is one of the most disruptive opportunities I’ve ever seen." 🚀
This is what Coinbase's early product market fit looked like:
💰 Doing 15% of all transactions on the world's biggest Bitcoin exchange at the time, Mt Gox
♽ Hitting working capital constraints set by their bank daily
🏆 The only fiat-to-crypto onramp w/ a FDIC-insured US bank
Things I got right: fiat to crypto onramp was the key moat, and software eating money is a big deal
Things I got wrong: I underestimated store of value— I was pretty sure medium of exchange was going to be why crypto would expand
True all along: Coinbase is a bank you don't protect with guns (though... these days, maybe a little bit) — founder market fit here was very strong. @brian_armstrong fought against fraud at Airbnb previously. He was the right person to bring this to the world.
Today Coinbase filed for IPO and Bitcoin market cap is $422 billion
The nature of exponential growth and product market fit are so extreme. All I want is to keep helping founders right at that inflection point, before they figure it out.
About 50 reviews through 300 YC applications submitted for comment.
Surprising how unaware people are of competition. Yes, you don't die by competition, but when you make something new, you should be hyper-aware of what Google might tell people to use instead of you.
2nd most common mistake: Describing what a startup does, but failing to communicate why it’s a great product/service.
New things must massively outperform incumbents just to have a chance at escaping obscurity.
Step 1 - What is it?
Step 2 - Is it great?
3rd most common mistake: Not highlighting the product, design, and what’s built
The majority of YC apps are still basically just an idea and a bunch of words. If you have a demo, wireframes, mockups, a working site, DEFINITELY link it and drive people to it.
Some people would argue venture investing is like alchemy, and value investing is like gold mining.
One is ethereal magic, and another is as real as could be.
Yet startups are businesses like any other.
The mechanics of finding opportunities are the same: moving dirt, rock, rubble to find gold.
The difference is that we are mining in places where they didn’t think to mine— new islands and continents recently discovered.
We’re also trying to find and fund them when it’s one or two people with a shovel in a field, and the first nugget hasn’t been dug out of the ground yet.
It looks like alchemy, but it’s still gold mining. That’s why value and venture investing aren’t that different after all.