Occasionally in YC founder circles a new founder will raise a bunch of money and then ask something like "What's the best way to invest all the money our company just raised?"
The responses are always along the lines of "Your startup is already risky. Don't innovate in areas of your business where the status quo is known to work. Innovate your product + technology, don't be innovative with your company's finances, HR, etc"
That advice always stuck with me. It just makes a lot of sense to do things in the most boring way possible, except where it matters (your competitive advantage <-- that's where you innovate, that's where you set yourself apart)
Running a startup is distracting enough. Doing things non-standard just adds to the list of distractions that you don't need as a founder.
YC, like most incubators, has always encouraged their companies to use products and services from other companies in their portfolio.
The simplest explanation is that this is a mostly symbolic move: They want to show that the stable coin and crypto companies they invest in are actually trusted by YC. It starts to look hypocritical if an investor is funding crypto companies and praising them as important breakthroughs, but not actually using them where it’s important.
It does seem ironic that a startup would immediately pivot to devoting some of its precious time and attention to becoming a hedge fund just as they've got the funding for their 'startup idea'. On the other hand, any big whack of cash should have an optimisation plan, lest it be wasted. Does YC provide templates?
Oversimplifying:
X = full amount of raised capital
Y = expected spend over 12 months
Z = $ value of percentage contingency for 12 months
Y+Z goes into use-it-however-and-whenever-you-want account (likely low to no interest)
X - (Y+Z) goes into a 12 month higher interest account, ideally staying untouched until maturity (stake the stablecoins in this context)
I'm skeptical of crpyto holding companies though, explicitly because of the lack of regulation. The likes of BlockFi, Celsius, and FTX gives me the cold sweats. Regulation in the US is notoriously lacking even in well established finance and banking, never mind the crypto 'industry' which was always high-percentage grifters, and now the Epstein files has added 'morally corrupt' tags to more of them.
Recipe for sleepless nights, which is already a problem for a startup founders isn't it?
Yeah but after a series of Big Prints we finally managed to make an inflation spike, a run on Silicon Valley Bank, the US President openly contemplating dollar devaluation, "Sell America trade" working for the first time in 50 years, the marginal buyer of treasuries eliminating the last dove on the path to war, and precious metals whipping around like meme stocks. "Park the money in a USD money market at SVB" used to be not just OK, but universally agreed to be obviously OK, which had value of its own. Now it's just OK. Probably. I hope.
Will we see some pivots into bullshit crypto holding companies? Sure, but VC returns are notoriously lottery-ticket distributed and 0 is 0 however you get there. I'd hazard a bet that the number of otherwise-successful companies who die due to this policy rounds to 0, while the probability of an inflationary wrecking ball that wipes out an entire batch of otherwise promising startups in the absence of such a policy is... north of zero.
To be clear, I don't think this is due to a special property of crypto, just the flexibility to get away from USD in case of emergency.
EDIT: maybe 24/7 trading could be an argument. It would be a meme for the ages if a raft of startups survived because they were up hustling and grinding at 2AM when the boats hit the Taiwan Strait.
You’re describing an event that would wipe out the US economy and trying to protect against that with stable coins, or at least that’s the impression I’m getting.
If the US falls apart, your startup will too. No matter how well preserved your cash reserves are.
The US going to war or entering hyperinflation is probably at the bottom of most founders lists of existential worries. Not a risk to mitigate (it’s a risk you need to accept since there’s nothing you can do - worrying about it won’t help)
Also, worth mentioning that no one lost money with SVB’s collapse. One might argue it was an incredibly smart decision for YC to recommend people bank at SVB since if SVB goes under, virtually all LP’s and everyone in the VC community will go under too (too big to fail, so they won’t, or if they do, everyone else fails too — kind of like AWS us-east-1)
Nah, hedging war is a meme, but I labeled it as such.
Startups that wanted to treasury in BTC or GLD, were told no, and were vindicated in hindsight are not a meme. Startups that were force-fed 10% inflation and a collapsing bank aren't a meme. That happened.
You can complain that it's irrational to hedge against these things which have been happening an awful lot lately, but you aren't the one who gets to decide. If an enterprising alternative VC is peeling away good founders by being flexible on this point, YC's option is to compete or let the deals go.
is this the right comparison? us-east-1 goes down a lot to an extent because everything goes down at the same time, rather than as a collective need to stay up. its one of the worst AWS regions if what you care about is stability and up time. too big to fail does not add extra up time guarantees to that region
No one might have lost their money with the collapse of the banks but with the large amount of new money printed, the value of each dollar will continue to erode.
Inflation and hyper-inflation can wipe out debts with future money that's cheaper more easily in some ways. I forget where I had read or learned more about this in other countries that had experienced it.
The fear is the loss of safe guards and independence of the Federal Reserve. Trump is actively trying to remove safe guards and independence that would allow the Federal Reserve to counteract anything like this. If for instance Trump wants to hold interest rates low regardless of what anyone is telling him, he wants that power[0][1].
The upcoming decision by the Supreme Court on case Trump v. Cook is about this very issue[2]
Then again, to play devils advocate, doing all the other stuff in a new way might also help your company break out of the cycle that typically impacts startups. It may be that the other things you do apart from your product are what make it successful.
I mean if you have a significant chunk of free cash sitting around there's almost no reason not to put a portion of it in 3-6 month Treasuries or something.
The return won't be much but it's better than letting the cash sit idle and evaporate due to inflation
The question is why you'd use money you raised for anything but the reason you raised it. You've probably raised a shit ton more than I have, but hear me out - when one raises, there's generally a timeline of fund deployment from the startup's UoF, right? That's how it was done in my case - we tell the investor what we need, why we need it, and when we need it, etc. And then if the investor agrees to invest, it's not just a lump sum sitting in the bank - a good amount of that money gets deployed to help the startup fulfill its mission.
I get that if you're running super lean and you've raised enough to run lean for a while and use cash when you need to, but at the same time why raise more than you have need for?
Depends on the funding vehicle. If you're on a SAFE, and still a going concern, then I think returning investor funds would trigger a priced round and you'd end up converting at a (hopefully) high valuation
This comment really shows how far the SV VC culture still is from running profitable businesses with solid fundamentals. No surprise that I am hearing this on the same website where people come to act like hard-done-by factory workers whenever [incredibly bloated and dysfunctional FAANG] lays people off after facing the real-world financial realities.
For the love of God, no. Do not do that. The cycle begins when you take the money. How there are still people here that don’t get this, I don’t understand.
That chart is telling about the durability of this business, but do we actually know the precise point at which YCombinator as an entity sold out?
For instance, I know Coinbase may be down -22% from the IPO price, but that doesn't mean YCombinator lost money nor made very little. If they, for instance, sold off during the first few days of the IPO they would have made out quite well.
There's also the whole question of how much money did YCombinator put in vs what they got out.
Without knowing this, about all the chart tells me is YCombinator is not a predicated on building exceedingly durable businesses, but it doesn't mean they lost money on any of these investments either.
YC isn’t the “bigger fool”, their business model is great for them. Of course they made money at IPO. They don’t care about durable businesses. More than likely they sold at IPO.
I realize, but that's my entire point: the durability of the business as represented by these valuations says nothing meaningful about YCombinator startups other than they aren't building alot of highly durable businesses.
Feels like step 1 to providing liqudity further down the toad. Also opening investment to “unqualified” investors. It never made sense that you could buy crypto, buy multiple homes, but sinking 10k into a friends startup was somehow regulated.
Stablecoins make a lot of sense in countries like Argentina where the national currency is a shitcoin. But YC doesn't fund startups in Argentina. Stablecoins can also be used to pay remote employees but that should probably go through an employer of record so that people aren't paid under the table. This sounds like more crypto for the sake of crypto.
Argentina got there with huge tariffs and excessive spending. Good thing the US would never do crazy stuff like that, right? Also the US government is currently debasing USD to increase exports as well as instituting currency controls. There's lots of reasons to be concerned about relying on USD.
FYI, when people talk about stablecoins, they usually mean fiat-backed stablecoins, which are coins that are expected to maintain the same exchange rate against fiat currencies, and which is usually just USD. Some literally have 'USD' in their names.
> There's lots of reasons to be concerned about relying on USD.
So no, even if this statement is true it's irrelevant to this thread.
I'm no fan of the current US administration, however I have questions about this.
What currency controls have been implemented? A cursory search turns up no results, though there is some speculation that capital controls could be coming, they never the less haven't materialized, at least in such a way that no credible news outlet has plainly stated it.
The debasing of the USD is again, a fear, and Trump is absolutely stoking the fire around it, but it hasn't actually happened, as far as I can tell.
If you have evidence of the contrary to either of these I'm quite curious to see it. I wouldn't put it past this administration in the slightest, but there is a difference between implementing them and talking about them and for correctness sake I want to understand.
This is one, at least technically. Though in practice I'm considering more like what you see in China, where they have very strict capital controls.
The Remittance tax has an enormous amount of exemption businesses (because no institution that is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act is subject to it, neither is cryptocurrency, which I find interesting) its functionally a tax on individuals that send money to their home countries, as once you work through all the exemptions its the only transfer function left.
While its deplorable, I thought something much more draconian was afoot
Argentina has debt in foreign denominated bonds though - the US (and UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) don't, only issuing bonds in their own currency, which makes a massive difference.
Not to say that Trump isn't wreaking economic havoc and madness, but the USD is resting on a far stronger base than somewhere like Argentina.
On face I don't see why startups would oppose to paying people under the table unless they just have a dogmatic adherence to the law. Like anything, they are likely to do a cost/risk analysis, which could change wildly depending on the context of the remote employee.
Stablecoins have their uses. I'm not saying never touch crypto. But the question is what is the point of stablecoins in VC funding specifically? People don't seem to have good answers.
Two of the fastest growing YC companies are crypto companies built on solana, Kalshi and Axiom. I'm pretty sure Axiom was the fastest to $100m in revenue, ever.
YC companies are constantly spending the money they get from YC right? Why get money, then put it in some stablecoin, only to then immediately cash out on salaries or whatever?
How does that make any sense to the company? Who's out here wanting their salary in stablecoin? And who among those want that and can't receive dollars and then turn them into stablecoin?
There's a sliver of talent that won't have access to the US banking system, but I can't imagine that making it worth putting up with risk + txn costs of stablecoins for the whole company.
If you rejected economic orthodoxy and bought Bitcoin/Gold over the last.... decade or so... you won over the economic orthodox believers.
I don't really care about short term gold gambling with ~1-2 year market spans or altcoins if you want to disagree.
The biggest threat to bitcoin and gold is something breaking their scarcity. Gold, nuclear chemistry. Bitcoin... quantum computing or something(ignoring rollback).
And after a serious beating it's still value at $48 billion.
Put it another way: of all the companies YC funded, both those who succeeded and the countless who failed, only two companies, AirBnB and Doordash, are valued more than Coinbase.
I don't think YC hates cryptocurrencies as much as the typical commenter on HN.
Yup. That's it. Because people are realizing crypto isn't worth the effort to support malware authors, money launderers, and North Korea's nuclear program.
And if you didn't know that's what you're supporting with the hype train, well now you do. Those folks all love and greatly benefit from difficult to audit financial instruments.
Axiom's pitch is "Trade memecoins, perpetuals, and earn yield" [1] so presumably they've hired a load of cryptocurrency-loving developers, and are eager to pay them in cryptocurrency.
Of course, given that the grandparent said "If they aren’t a crypto startup" - Axiom clearly doesn't apply.
Might help them win crypto deals. Or expand into shady geographies. Otherwise, I guess having a signal that your founders will donate the interest they’re owed is…something.
I would do this and make sure to convert to a privacy coin like Monero the first chance I get. I get audited by the IRS every year, even when I was making minimum wage in college. I hate the regulators and making it as difficult as possible for them would feel like justice.
That being said, there are slim chances I would ever be selected as a YC founder. My ideas are more like ChatGPT, nobody would dare invest in them until after it's already released, then all of a sudden chatbot startups get trillions of dollars.
Despite still not really showing any utility these tech companies want so so so much for cryptocurrency to catch on.
It feels like the entirety of cryptocurrency, outside of being a thing people used to buy drugs, has been an example of Chesterton's Fence, with half of Silicon Valley in denial of this fact.
The pendulum has swung a little too far that way, for sure. But when the so-called "cryptocurrency" industry either have business models that are barely concealed ponzis/rugpulls, or run their own "cryptocurrencies" that are only marginally better than a centralised database, it's hard to blame the critics.
I guess this can make sense if the startup is doing crypto, otherwise it seems like financial friction. That said, I believe the entire crypto ecosystem is just a giant scam.
It's quite hilarious that you link to an EA forum to make your point when it's a known fact SBF was from the EA movement and they openly discussed --after the SBF/FTX/Alameda fraud was exposed-- whether scamming people to give part of the money they stole to fund things they thought would make EA participants look as white knight was acceptable or not.
The best example is SBF's guru who bought a 15 million GBP mansion in the UK for the EA movement with stolen funds.
Now he's keeping a very low profile because I know for a fact that up to a few years ago there was still assets being clawed back from the Enron fraud (!). So that mansion could be seized one day from the EA movement.
Let's steal money, let's buy private jets and fancy villas for our parents in tax heavens, let's give some to worthy cause (worthy in their own eyes).
Despicable people this EA movement.
And, no, I'm neither taking lessons nor explanations from what are, in the end, just petty scammers / thieves.
SVB was considered the "standard" bank for all startups for decades so it's not surprising that YC would give the same advice. If you run a startup out of a normal bank sometimes you get weird glitches: https://mitchellh.com/writing/my-startup-banking-story
Of course today startups are probably using Mercury/Ramp/whatever.
SVB depositors were mildly interrupted, no doubt, but there's little reason not to exercise extreme moral hazard in banking. OPM will bail you out via FDIC. Theoretically that has a limit but in practice FDIC usually will bail out the full balances even over the nominal limit.
If I had an FDIC account I would basically want a bank that invests my money in the most wildly hazardous ways with the most reckless financial controls to give the max returns and flexibility, then let everyone else bail me out if it went south.
Go back to the SVB failure threads here and observe the freak out before the decision was made to reimburse deposits above FDIC limits. Sometimes you’re lucky, but luck is not effective risk management.
Stablecoins work quiet fine as exchange medium for millions of people around the world, including myself, so they are different from vouchers and ramen.
“Stablecoins is one of the key pillars for us,” Dalal said, referring to one of the areas where Y Combinator would like to see more startup ideas. “So we just want to live and breathe that as well.”
I asked ChatGPT for an honest translation:
“We’re actively trying to manufacture demand and legitimacy for stablecoins by forcing them into the startup supply chain.”
I hope we aren't too close to "territorial currencies" where each feudal lord was authorized (or not forbidden) to mint his own currency, which couldn't be carried over the next feud. Think awarded "miles" by your credit card, or tickets in a games center.
During the Free Banking era of US history (from when Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd National Bank until the Civil War, roughly 1837-1863) essentially every company that could get their state to give them a bank charter (very very poorly regulated) could issue its own paper notes that were treated as currency, with the very poor state regulation alone responsible for ensuring that they didn't print more notes than they had specie to back up.
You'll never guess, but most banks didn't actually have enough specie to back their notes, and banks constantly failed during the Free Banking era. If a bank failed then the notes value went to zero, and so notes always traded at a discount to their face value, and there were even brokers who were paid by local merchants to give them the latest correct discount rates for all the local banks (updating daily), and if a bank note got far enough away from the bank that the local broker didn't know about it, well, then it wouldn't be accepted by a local merchant. So effectively a similar result here in the capitalist, non-aristocratic US for about 15 years.
This is an enormous amount of overhead in actually running an economy, which was why it was ended and we had the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 to try to create a more uniform currency, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing created in 1862, etc. Because the actual businesses started to demand simpler accounting, and so more financial regulation of the banks.
> You'll never guess, but most banks didn't actually have enough specie to back their notes, and banks constantly failed during the Free Banking era. If a bank failed then the notes value went to zero, and so notes always traded at a discount to their face value, and there were even brokers who were paid by local merchants to give them the latest correct discount rates for all the local banks (updating daily), and if a bank note got far enough away from the bank that the local broker didn't know about it, well, then it wouldn't be accepted by a local merchant.
That sounds like a libertarian paradise. Sign us all up!
Ironically enough though, could feudal currencies actually be better on a blockchain? Think shares in a business. Bitcoin is backed by nothing, but if businesses all trade on Ethereum–style L2s, you could lock in whatever you want. Think: I want 2 tonnes of lumber for my new house build so I will trade whatever for 20000 $HomeDepotLMBR and it entitles me to exactly that amount when I go into the store.
As evidenced by the comments on this post, HN understanding of crypto is typically ten years out of date, so I'm going to post this top level:
- Transferring money across regions with the best 'normie' tools (eg Transferwise/wise.com) is multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than $0.0000015 (tranferring USDC or another GENIUS-compliant stablecoin on Solana).
- You can easily put stablecoins in a Lulo savings account and get 5% interest instead of 0.1% or whatever your bank provides. Yes Lulo has insurance.
- The Genius act regulates stablecoin provision. US-issued stablecoins are backed by government bonds with proof of reserves. USDC and PyUSD are compliant already, USAT exists because USDT isn't compliant.
- There's no offramp fees for PyUSD, and you, random American, have a Solana address in the 'crypto' tab of your Paypal app. 1234.56 in PyUSD means you get 1234.56 in Chase or Wells Fargo or whatever. In future your bank will hold these assets directly without need to off-ramp at all.
If you want to throw your investors money away to outdated percentage point cross border payments systems you're welcome to.
> Transferring money across regions with the best 'normie' tools (eg Transferwise/wise.com) is multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than $0.0000015 (tranferring USDC or another GENIUS-compliant stablecoin on Solana).
I don't see how that's relevant to YC startups. Startups can't legally pay their employees in crypto through transfers, any more than they can write checks out of their bank account or pay their employees in cash. I've paid an overseas employee in BTC before, but we still had to go through a payroll provider and do everything above-board to satisfy IRS requirements.
I'm curious why you can't legally pay in crypto?
I heard a few times about companies paying in crypto to their remote workers. In fact I heard that a US company was paying in BTC withing the US, though I'm not sure I trust this particular story. I also see that Deel accepts USDC, and to my understanding they convert to local currency of the remote worker.
Is that all illegal? Truly want to understand.
It's probably legal as long as you do all the same accounting/withholding that you would normally do. I suspect some companies are forgetting to do that, just as many people forget to report taxes on crypto.
And how are you supposed to convert USD to USDC to local currency at par? The exchange fees end up eating any savings you got from not using the normie SWIFT network, and then at tax filing time you have to account for paying / being paid in specie instead of cash.
I edited my comment above to provide answer. Swap whatever stable to PyUSD (negligible) and then send to your Solana address in Paypal. You can also hold crypto in US banks pretty soon.
- ACH fees are pretty small, depends on the payroll provider of course, so USD ACH transfer to Wise is pretty much free
- I bet with whatever way I can convert the stable coin to my local currency (EUR), that it will be more expensive than Wise. Certainly Paypal is really expensive (as in SWIFT transfer would be better)
After ACH, which I’m assuming you got for free as you mentioned, US to Poland for 1000 USD on Wise is still 0.46% which is multiple orders of magnitude more expensive.
This all makes sense... if a YC startup is going to spend the majority of its funding outside the US. I'm having trouble thinking of such a scenario though. I'd expect YC money to be spent on rent, founder salaries, and API calls.
I don't know why I'd trust crypto companies with my company's money given the general lack of regulation; outrageous history of massive fraud, scams, security breaches and simply insiders running away with money; short history of these companies; lack of trusted deposit insurance; lack of reversibility; suspicious claims of guaranteed high "risk free" rates of return; and frankly, the general seediness of seemingly everyone involved.
More importantly, not only are those regulations not in effect, the final regulations haven't even been written or approved yet - which brings up certain questions about how a stablecoin could be compliant with them.
And of course, even if a US-based stablecoin is well regulated, it still doesn't make these foreign "savings" account companies offering guaranteed high rates of return is a safe place to park your money.
Everything about it feels scammy. The claim of compliance against non-existent regulations, too good to be true guaranteed high rates of return, companies set up in questionable jurisdictions and the emotional appeals of not being a sucker and fear of missing out? All that's missing is a suggestion that there's a limited time left to act.
I mean, asking for $500 in gold every paycheck would be kinda cool, or getting gold coinage each pay cycle on a rolling basis, as many coins as your repeated $500 contributions buy.
It'd be friction against spending, a little bit of investing, in the case of gold, but friction against spending with crypto only makes sense if you don't lose a lot on moving it into a real bank account.
Why? Because the US stable coins are an abstraction on top of US treasuries. It's effectively trading in the US debt market, not trading in crypto-hype.
The Fed is interested in converting the debt to another medium, for obvious reasons. Stablecoin looks to be the leader, since a number of the new administration have talked about it in the last decade (re: Scott Besset stablecoin speech).
I can understand why some companies want their runway in a currency that may go up during a transition (a more favorable exchange rate). There's little lossage in the exchange of USDT/USDC in the short term. Seems like a hedge strategy.
The why stands. If the Fed got involved in transitioning the currency, which seems MORE likely under this administration (because of the grift and corruption), then they will be negotiating with the stable coin providers and the grift will follow the normal trajectory to the moon or whatever. The arbitrary "not until some independent shows the paperwork" will never be on the table.
Independent audits aren't arbitrary. They're the standard by which you can tell whether an organization is lying about their finances. Double entry accounting and receipts makes it pretty difficult to fake especially when the claim is as simple as "don't worry, we hold the backing value in treasuries." Of course, the independent part has to be truly independent and not paid for by the audited. But they refuse independent audits.
> I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds
This is a good distillation of the inherent issue going forward with crypto. The people in tech I trust _least_ (cryptobros) are selling in a service that I require the _highest_ level of trust (finance). It's a very bad sales pitch.
You don't buy stablecoins because you trust them. You buy them because a greater idiot will. For that reason, I wouldn't be particularly bothered about getting them instead of dollars, though I'd try not to hold on to them terribly long.
Between this and Canada being dropped as an investable country shortly after the recent US/Canada fracas, I'm starting to wonder about YC's current political affiliations. Also, if you want to put your tinfoil hat on, Michael Seibel and Dalton Caldwell were publicly anti-Trump, and they both left months after the Trump admin took over, a very paranoid take is that the big shot VCs tied to YC made a push to "clean house" or "toe the line" and they were either gently pushed out or decided to leave because they didn't like the new vibes.
> Michael Seibel and Dalton Caldwell were publicly anti-Trump
Neither of these were "publicly anti-Trump" as much as Garry Tan has been.
Actually, where'd you even get that from? I cannot with my life imagine that Dalton would publicly post about politics. I've googled around a bit and found nothing either.
Michael specifically mentions in an older video with Dalton brainstorming things they could do about Trump. I don't recall ever seeing a YC video where Garry leaks any political affiliations, though I don't follow him on social media.
I don't recall the specific Dalton + Michael video, and it's not important enough for me to dig up, particularly if Garry is politically outspoken on social media. I'd prefer to believe YC is still a neutral player, but the amount of ring kissing from the big valley VCs makes suspicion rational.
Not endorsing conspiracy theories but one of the YC guys is an investor in flock, which is positioned to benefit from some of the recent political policies.
Occasionally in YC founder circles a new founder will raise a bunch of money and then ask something like "What's the best way to invest all the money our company just raised?"
The responses are always along the lines of "Your startup is already risky. Don't innovate in areas of your business where the status quo is known to work. Innovate your product + technology, don't be innovative with your company's finances, HR, etc"
That advice always stuck with me. It just makes a lot of sense to do things in the most boring way possible, except where it matters (your competitive advantage <-- that's where you innovate, that's where you set yourself apart)
Running a startup is distracting enough. Doing things non-standard just adds to the list of distractions that you don't need as a founder.
The simplest explanation is that this is a mostly symbolic move: They want to show that the stable coin and crypto companies they invest in are actually trusted by YC. It starts to look hypocritical if an investor is funding crypto companies and praising them as important breakthroughs, but not actually using them where it’s important.
What a strange toss-up.
See for yourself the blacklist features
https://github.com/circlefin/stablecoin-evm/tree/master/scri...
Oversimplifying:
X = full amount of raised capital
Y = expected spend over 12 months
Z = $ value of percentage contingency for 12 months
Y+Z goes into use-it-however-and-whenever-you-want account (likely low to no interest)
X - (Y+Z) goes into a 12 month higher interest account, ideally staying untouched until maturity (stake the stablecoins in this context)
I'm skeptical of crpyto holding companies though, explicitly because of the lack of regulation. The likes of BlockFi, Celsius, and FTX gives me the cold sweats. Regulation in the US is notoriously lacking even in well established finance and banking, never mind the crypto 'industry' which was always high-percentage grifters, and now the Epstein files has added 'morally corrupt' tags to more of them.
Recipe for sleepless nights, which is already a problem for a startup founders isn't it?
Will we see some pivots into bullshit crypto holding companies? Sure, but VC returns are notoriously lottery-ticket distributed and 0 is 0 however you get there. I'd hazard a bet that the number of otherwise-successful companies who die due to this policy rounds to 0, while the probability of an inflationary wrecking ball that wipes out an entire batch of otherwise promising startups in the absence of such a policy is... north of zero.
To be clear, I don't think this is due to a special property of crypto, just the flexibility to get away from USD in case of emergency.
EDIT: maybe 24/7 trading could be an argument. It would be a meme for the ages if a raft of startups survived because they were up hustling and grinding at 2AM when the boats hit the Taiwan Strait.
If the US falls apart, your startup will too. No matter how well preserved your cash reserves are.
The US going to war or entering hyperinflation is probably at the bottom of most founders lists of existential worries. Not a risk to mitigate (it’s a risk you need to accept since there’s nothing you can do - worrying about it won’t help)
Also, worth mentioning that no one lost money with SVB’s collapse. One might argue it was an incredibly smart decision for YC to recommend people bank at SVB since if SVB goes under, virtually all LP’s and everyone in the VC community will go under too (too big to fail, so they won’t, or if they do, everyone else fails too — kind of like AWS us-east-1)
Startups that wanted to treasury in BTC or GLD, were told no, and were vindicated in hindsight are not a meme. Startups that were force-fed 10% inflation and a collapsing bank aren't a meme. That happened.
You can complain that it's irrational to hedge against these things which have been happening an awful lot lately, but you aren't the one who gets to decide. If an enterprising alternative VC is peeling away good founders by being flexible on this point, YC's option is to compete or let the deals go.
is this the right comparison? us-east-1 goes down a lot to an extent because everything goes down at the same time, rather than as a collective need to stay up. its one of the worst AWS regions if what you care about is stability and up time. too big to fail does not add extra up time guarantees to that region
Inflation and hyper-inflation can wipe out debts with future money that's cheaper more easily in some ways. I forget where I had read or learned more about this in other countries that had experienced it.
Why won’t the fed raise rates?
The upcoming decision by the Supreme Court on case Trump v. Cook is about this very issue[2]
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/29/economy/federal-reserve-indep...
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/why-the-federal-reserves...
[2]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/will-the-federal-reserve-remai...
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25A312
The return won't be much but it's better than letting the cash sit idle and evaporate due to inflation
If you have a huge chunk of change sitting around, you've raised too much or too early, and you've successfully diluted yourself for zero reason.
If you actually had a reason to raise a lot of money, you'd do with the money what you promised the investors (who gave you the money) you would.
I've raised before. I raised what I needed. Not a penny more because I didn't need the money.
- 12 months runway - $100k/mo. burn rate - 4% APR
Gives you about $25k interest.
Seems worth it to me.
I'm not saying raising and then buying T-Bills is better than just raising less.
I'm saying if you find yourself with excess cash, you can't just un-raise. In that scenario, then short term T Bills are strictly better than cash.
I get that if you're running super lean and you've raised enough to run lean for a while and use cash when you need to, but at the same time why raise more than you have need for?
I always thought a startup can return cash to investors as long as the payments or dispersements are proportional to the amount of stock owned.
Don't get bogged down with that stuff.
For the love of God, no. Do not do that. The cycle begins when you take the money. How there are still people here that don’t get this, I don’t understand.
Occasionally it’s the public market…
https://medium.com/@Arakunrin/the-post-ipo-performance-of-y-...
Most often for successful exits, it’s to get acquired and shut down the original product with a “Our Amazing Journey” blog post.
For instance, I know Coinbase may be down -22% from the IPO price, but that doesn't mean YCombinator lost money nor made very little. If they, for instance, sold off during the first few days of the IPO they would have made out quite well.
There's also the whole question of how much money did YCombinator put in vs what they got out.
Without knowing this, about all the chart tells me is YCombinator is not a predicated on building exceedingly durable businesses, but it doesn't mean they lost money on any of these investments either.
> There's lots of reasons to be concerned about relying on USD.
So no, even if this statement is true it's irrelevant to this thread.
What currency controls have been implemented? A cursory search turns up no results, though there is some speculation that capital controls could be coming, they never the less haven't materialized, at least in such a way that no credible news outlet has plainly stated it.
The debasing of the USD is again, a fear, and Trump is absolutely stoking the fire around it, but it hasn't actually happened, as far as I can tell.
If you have evidence of the contrary to either of these I'm quite curious to see it. I wouldn't put it past this administration in the slightest, but there is a difference between implementing them and talking about them and for correctness sake I want to understand.
The Remittance tax has an enormous amount of exemption businesses (because no institution that is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act is subject to it, neither is cryptocurrency, which I find interesting) its functionally a tax on individuals that send money to their home countries, as once you work through all the exemptions its the only transfer function left.
While its deplorable, I thought something much more draconian was afoot
Not to say that Trump isn't wreaking economic havoc and madness, but the USD is resting on a far stronger base than somewhere like Argentina.
Or perhaps Y Combinator is great at funding startups, but incredibly bad with financial decision making.
In which case it is an IQ test for Y Combinator, which they have failed.
How does that make any sense to the company? Who's out here wanting their salary in stablecoin? And who among those want that and can't receive dollars and then turn them into stablecoin?
There's a sliver of talent that won't have access to the US banking system, but I can't imagine that making it worth putting up with risk + txn costs of stablecoins for the whole company.
I don't really care about short term gold gambling with ~1-2 year market spans or altcoins if you want to disagree.
The biggest threat to bitcoin and gold is something breaking their scarcity. Gold, nuclear chemistry. Bitcoin... quantum computing or something(ignoring rollback).
It also trades under the ticker "COIN": https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/COIN/
And after a serious beating it's still value at $48 billion.
Put it another way: of all the companies YC funded, both those who succeeded and the countless who failed, only two companies, AirBnB and Doordash, are valued more than Coinbase.
I don't think YC hates cryptocurrencies as much as the typical commenter on HN.
Founders can also obtain payment cards to spend it as: "Crypto payment cards hit inflection point as daily transactions surge 22x since late 2024."
https://www.theblock.co/post/386371/crypto-payment-cards-inf...
Yet, I personally think that crypto-native is the goal for commerce with the ability to skip over the "stable" bit.
And if you didn't know that's what you're supporting with the hype train, well now you do. Those folks all love and greatly benefit from difficult to audit financial instruments.
YC -> Circle -> Coinbase -> YC
Of course, given that the grandparent said "If they aren’t a crypto startup" - Axiom clearly doesn't apply.
[1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/axiom
That being said, there are slim chances I would ever be selected as a YC founder. My ideas are more like ChatGPT, nobody would dare invest in them until after it's already released, then all of a sudden chatbot startups get trillions of dollars.
It feels like the entirety of cryptocurrency, outside of being a thing people used to buy drugs, has been an example of Chesterton's Fence, with half of Silicon Valley in denial of this fact.
We have people in this thread praising KYC.
Satoshi Nakamoto must be rolling in his grave.
Indirectly it might provide some more public visibility initally anyways.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31686140
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31461634
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5mghcxCabxuaK4WTs/...
The best example is SBF's guru who bought a 15 million GBP mansion in the UK for the EA movement with stolen funds.
Now he's keeping a very low profile because I know for a fact that up to a few years ago there was still assets being clawed back from the Enron fraud (!). So that mansion could be seized one day from the EA movement.
Let's steal money, let's buy private jets and fancy villas for our parents in tax heavens, let's give some to worthy cause (worthy in their own eyes).
Despicable people this EA movement.
And, no, I'm neither taking lessons nor explanations from what are, in the end, just petty scammers / thieves.
(FWIW, it did end well, as going with a relatively large federally insured bank meant that no one lost any money during the crash)
Of course today startups are probably using Mercury/Ramp/whatever.
chase did what they were asked for years
up to the point they were told there had fraud going on, at which point the walls went up
which is entirely as to be expected
If I had an FDIC account I would basically want a bank that invests my money in the most wildly hazardous ways with the most reckless financial controls to give the max returns and flexibility, then let everyone else bail me out if it went south.
I'm waiting for the demands for a bailout when the next big stablecoin goes bust. Especially if it's Trump's.[1]
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-usd1-stablecoin-hits-5b...
I asked ChatGPT for an honest translation:
“We’re actively trying to manufacture demand and legitimacy for stablecoins by forcing them into the startup supply chain.”
https://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/41452/1/112....
You'll never guess, but most banks didn't actually have enough specie to back their notes, and banks constantly failed during the Free Banking era. If a bank failed then the notes value went to zero, and so notes always traded at a discount to their face value, and there were even brokers who were paid by local merchants to give them the latest correct discount rates for all the local banks (updating daily), and if a bank note got far enough away from the bank that the local broker didn't know about it, well, then it wouldn't be accepted by a local merchant. So effectively a similar result here in the capitalist, non-aristocratic US for about 15 years.
This is an enormous amount of overhead in actually running an economy, which was why it was ended and we had the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 to try to create a more uniform currency, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing created in 1862, etc. Because the actual businesses started to demand simpler accounting, and so more financial regulation of the banks.
That sounds like a libertarian paradise. Sign us all up!
Ironically enough though, could feudal currencies actually be better on a blockchain? Think shares in a business. Bitcoin is backed by nothing, but if businesses all trade on Ethereum–style L2s, you could lock in whatever you want. Think: I want 2 tonnes of lumber for my new house build so I will trade whatever for 20000 $HomeDepotLMBR and it entitles me to exactly that amount when I go into the store.
- Transferring money across regions with the best 'normie' tools (eg Transferwise/wise.com) is multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than $0.0000015 (tranferring USDC or another GENIUS-compliant stablecoin on Solana).
- You can easily put stablecoins in a Lulo savings account and get 5% interest instead of 0.1% or whatever your bank provides. Yes Lulo has insurance.
- The Genius act regulates stablecoin provision. US-issued stablecoins are backed by government bonds with proof of reserves. USDC and PyUSD are compliant already, USAT exists because USDT isn't compliant.
- There's no offramp fees for PyUSD, and you, random American, have a Solana address in the 'crypto' tab of your Paypal app. 1234.56 in PyUSD means you get 1234.56 in Chase or Wells Fargo or whatever. In future your bank will hold these assets directly without need to off-ramp at all.
If you want to throw your investors money away to outdated percentage point cross border payments systems you're welcome to.
I don't see how that's relevant to YC startups. Startups can't legally pay their employees in crypto through transfers, any more than they can write checks out of their bank account or pay their employees in cash. I've paid an overseas employee in BTC before, but we still had to go through a payroll provider and do everything above-board to satisfy IRS requirements.
I edited my comment above to provide answer. Swap whatever stable to PyUSD (negligible) and then send to your Solana address in Paypal. You can also hold crypto in US banks pretty soon.
- I bet with whatever way I can convert the stable coin to my local currency (EUR), that it will be more expensive than Wise. Certainly Paypal is really expensive (as in SWIFT transfer would be better)
I mean, for goodness sake, "normie"? Come on.
More importantly, not only are those regulations not in effect, the final regulations haven't even been written or approved yet - which brings up certain questions about how a stablecoin could be compliant with them.
And of course, even if a US-based stablecoin is well regulated, it still doesn't make these foreign "savings" account companies offering guaranteed high rates of return is a safe place to park your money.
Everything about it feels scammy. The claim of compliance against non-existent regulations, too good to be true guaranteed high rates of return, companies set up in questionable jurisdictions and the emotional appeals of not being a sucker and fear of missing out? All that's missing is a suggestion that there's a limited time left to act.
Both are equally stupid, and you have to exchange them to buy most of the things you might need.
Crypto more hype-able
It'd be friction against spending, a little bit of investing, in the case of gold, but friction against spending with crypto only makes sense if you don't lose a lot on moving it into a real bank account.
solo 401(k) is for you
The Fed is interested in converting the debt to another medium, for obvious reasons. Stablecoin looks to be the leader, since a number of the new administration have talked about it in the last decade (re: Scott Besset stablecoin speech).
I can understand why some companies want their runway in a currency that may go up during a transition (a more favorable exchange rate). There's little lossage in the exchange of USDT/USDC in the short term. Seems like a hedge strategy.
Nope. Not until these companies allow an independent external audit. I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds.
Oh, and the current administration is clearly corrupt, so this administration wanting to convert the US to bozo bucks isn't one for the plus column.
This is a good distillation of the inherent issue going forward with crypto. The people in tech I trust _least_ (cryptobros) are selling in a service that I require the _highest_ level of trust (finance). It's a very bad sales pitch.
Neither of these were "publicly anti-Trump" as much as Garry Tan has been.
Actually, where'd you even get that from? I cannot with my life imagine that Dalton would publicly post about politics. I've googled around a bit and found nothing either.
Either way, my point is it's an extreme stretch to believe their departure, Trump, and crypto stablecoins are somehow related.
[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety