Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth - Lessons from working with 600+ YC startups | Gustaf Alströmer (Y Combinator, Airbnb)

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Brought to you by Linear—The new standard for modern software development. | Eppo—Run reliable, impactful experiments. | Pando—Always-on employee progression.—Gustaf Alströmer is a Group Partner at Y Combinator, where he’s worked with over 600 startups in his 6.5 years there. He’s also a fellow Airbnb alumnus and even started the original Airbnb growth team. In today’s podcast, Gustaf discusses common reasons startups fail and how he helps coach founders on avoiding these mistakes. He explains the attributes that the best founders tend to have, and signs that a company has potential. We also cover the growing space of climate tech, for which Gustaf has a huge passion and where he’s already had an incredible impact. He shares some key areas of innovation and investment in climate tech, some notable companies he’s helped fund, and where he sees potential going forward.Find the full transcript here: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/lessons-from-working-with-600-ycWhere to find Gustaf Alströmer:• Twitter: https://twitter.com/gustaf• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gustafalstromer/Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• Twitter: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/Referenced:• Airbnb tweet: https://twitter.com/gustaf/status/1580330162725347330• Startups Are an Act of Desperation: https://blog.eladgil.com/p/startups-are-an-act-of-desperation• The 18 Mistakes That Kill Startups: http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html• Do Things That Don’t Scale: http://paulgraham.com/ds.html• Marc Andreessen: https://a16z.com/author/marc-andreessen/• How to Talk to Users: https://youtu.be/z1iF1c8w5Lg• How to Get Your First Customers: https://youtu.be/hyYCn_kAngI• Pachama: https://pachama.com/• Request for Startups: Climate Tech: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/rfs-climatetech• Climate Draft: https://www.climatedraft.org/• Seabound: https://www.seabound.co/• Fleetzero: https://www.fleetzero.com/• Unravel Carbon: https://www.unravelcarbon.com/• CarbonChain: https://www.carbonchain.com/• Sinai: https://www.sinaitechnologies.com/• Enode: https://enode.com/• Statiq: https://www.statiq.in/• Heart Aerospace: https://heartaerospace.com/• The 100% Solution: A Plan for Solving Climate Change: https://www.amazon.com/100-Solution-Solving-Climate-Change/dp/1612198384• Without a Doubt: How to Go from Underrated to Unbeatable: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1982147903?tag=simonsayscom• Emily in Paris on Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/81037371• Everything Everywhere All at Once on Showtime: https://www.sho.com/titles/3493875/everything-everywhere-all-at-once• How to Apply and Succeed at Y Combinator, by Dalton Caldwell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yiOcCPvyNE• Y Combinator on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ycombinatorIn this episode, we cover:(00:00) Gustaf’s background(04:15) What made Airbnb so special(07:21) How culture interviews and hiring founders contributed to Airbnb’s success(10:31) Motivations for starting companies(13:17) Why Gustaf helps founders understand their motivations(14:13) Reasons you should not start a company(16:03) The magic that happens at YC office hours(20:45) Why founders in coworking spaces should schedule time to talk (21:36) Questions Gustaf asks founders(22:26) Common reasons startups fail(26:23) Getting over the fear of rejection (27:57) The importance of solving for pain points and why you should watch users(34:21) The value of having a technical co-founder(37:42) How founders without technical expertise have succeeded(40:46) Attributes of the most successful founders(44:57) Why it’s hard to predict success and how YC advises against failures(46:59) Indications of potential for success(50:03) Speed vs. quality(51:11) Confidence vs. humility(52:48) Execution and tactics vs. strategy(54:36) Autocratic vs. collaborative-driven founders(56:27) Why you should focus on product first(59:03) The economic incentive for investing in climate tech(1:02:16) The clean-tech bubble of 2008(1:04:59) Why you don’t need to be super-scientific to work in climate tech(1:06:51) Areas of climate tech and promising companies(1:12:27) What’s going well in the climate-change space(1:16:49) Lightning roundProduction and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email [e-mail]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com/subscribe

If I drill down, like, what makes companies fail? It's quite simple. It's just like they don't talk to users, which means they don't find product market fit. And if they don't find product market fit, like nothing else really matters. And what mistakes do people make? It's like, it's all about that. It's all about talking to customers and learning that you're building something that's actually useful. Why I see it's like headline is make things people want.

And that's still true. And it's always going to be true. Welcome to Lenny's podcast where I interview world-class product leaders and growth experts to learn from their hard-win experiences, building and growing today's most successful products. Today, my guest is Gustav Alströmmer. Gustav is a group partner at Y Combinator, where he's been for almost six years. Prior to that, Gustav was at Airbnb for over four years, where he started the original Airbnb growth team, and where I was very lucky to get to work alongside him for a number of years. Gustav is also at the heart of YC's increased focus on climate tech, and in my opinion is one of a handful of people who've had an incredible impact

on the increasing amount of investment and people flowing into climate tech. We chat in depth about what's happening in climate tech, why things have shifted so much recently, what's new and exciting, and how to think about the space if you're hoping to make the jump. We also get deep into Gustav's experience working with over 600 startups over his time at YC. We talk about what are the most common mistakes that early stage startups and founders make. What advice YC partners give founders most often, the most common attributes of successful founders, the importance of having a technical co-founder and why that's the case. So much more.

I guarantee you will leave this episode smarter and more inspired. And I can't wait for you to hear it. With that, I bring you Gustav Allstromer after a short word from our wonderful sponsors. This episode is brought to you by Linear. Let's be honest. The issue tracker that you're using today isn't very helpful. Why is it that it always seems to be working against you instead of working for you? Why does it feel like such a chore to use?

Well, linear is different. It's incredibly fast, beautifully designed, and it comes with powerful workflows that streamline your entire product development process, from issue tracking all the way to managing product roadmaps. Linear is designed for the way modern software teams work. What users love about linear are the powerful keyboard shortcuts, efficient GitHub integrations, cycles that actually create progress, and built-in project updates that keep everyone in sync.

In short, it just works. Linear is the default tool of choice among startups, and it powers a wide range of large established companies such as Versel, Retool, and Cash App. See for yourself why product teams describe using linear as magical. Visit linear.com slash Lenny to try linear for free with your team and get 25% off when you upgrade. That's linear.com slash Lenny.

This episode is brought to you by Epo. Epo is a next generation AB testing platform built by Airbnb alumni for modern growth teams. Companies like Netlify, Contentful, and Cameo rely on Epo to power their experiments. Wherever you work, running experiments is increasingly essential, but there are no commercial tools that integrate with a modern growth team stack.

This leads to waste of time building internal tools or trying to run your experiments through a clunky marketing tool. When I was at Airbnb, one of the things that I loved about our experimentation platform was being able to easily slice results by device, by country, and by user stage. Epo does all that and more, delivering results quickly, avoiding annoying prolonged analytic cycles, and helping you easily get to the root cause of any issue you discover. Epo lets you go beyond basic click-through metrics, and instead use your North Star metrics like activation, retention, subscriptions, and payments.

And Epo supports tests on the front end, the back end, email marketing, and even machine learning clients. Check out Epo at getepo.com, get EPPO.com, and 10X your experiment velocity. Gustav, welcome to the podcast. Thank you, Lenny. It's honestly so great to see you. I'm excited to be talking to you. I've been looking forward to this conversation for a while. ever since we booked this. We worked together at Airbnb for many years. I was really lucky to get to work with you

before you moved on to bigger and better things at YC. And speaking of Airbnb, he once tweeted about how special an experience that was for you. And I think even more interestingly, how many of the people that have left Airbnb can't find another place that's as special, but just like that bar has been set too high. And so my first question is just like,

what do you think it was that made Airbnb so special? why was it such an important experience for you and other people? And even more importantly, just what is it that you take from that experience that you bring to startups that you work with now? Yeah, it's funny. Like, I think this year in a couple of months, it'll be 10 years ago since the Unami started Airbnb. And it was 2012. And the reason I tweeted that was I asked everyone that I meant after Airbnb,

because I had this experience of like, this was the highlight of my career up until then, at least being in a team like that. And I asked everyone, have you found anything better? And like I haven't heard, besides maybe one or two people, I haven't heard anybody say that I found something better. And they all missed that dearly. And I thought a lot about why that was the case, but I would say, Airbnb did not feel like a normal job. It felt like more like a group of friends trying to just do something together. And we were friends.

And we weren't like, at least in the beginning, it did not feel like this was a job. It was sort of like an ongoing project. an assembly of amazing people. And I think in the end, we managed to build two things, like a really successful company, thanks to Joe and Nate and Brian for starting this,

like without them, like there would be nothing to build. And we also, I think, people don't like to use the word family, but I feel like that way because when I go and meet with MB alumni from that team, we have a very special bond

that reminds me of close social connections more than anything else. Does not remind me of coworkers. And I asked myself why this was the case. The best answer I have is probably like we brought in a special type of people. We had very diverse backgrounds. A lot of us was former founders. Not many of us were career people from the technology industry of the early days.

Not many of us. And I think that bar that we set like the first, I believe when I joined there was probably five or seven PMs and there was like 30 engineers or something and you joined a little bit before me. Those people set the bar or set the standard. of what we're looking for afterwards. And I think it took a long time to change that narrative. I mean, eventually you have to hire people that only had big corporation careers,

but I don't remember we did that for a long time. And when I sent my, I actually read my goodbye note recently and I, like that my words there still means a lot to me. And it means sort of like you're trying to reflect on exactly these things. I'm like building a great company that became successful and being part of this sort of family of really close friends. So it sounds like if you had to kind of like boil down what Airbnb did right, it sounds like hiring was the main piece that impacted the way it turned out,

just like the founders being very specific about the type of people they were hiring. Absolutely. Is there anything that's like, I don't know, a takeaway there of just what you recommend to founders, like hiring, you know, people know, be very careful who you hire the first, I don't know, 10 people will impact the culture long term. But I don't know. Is there anything just like abstractate away there of just like what to look for in that first batch of hires?

It's a tricky one because like I would like to say that all the things that we did were the costs of the outcome of this. But that's not really how the world works. Like some of the things we did work, then some of the things we did not work. And it's hard for us to actually disentangle what those things are. But I think we can talk about the things that we did.

First of all, we made sure we hired people that were really excited to be there. They wanted to build Airbnb and they were really excited to work on Airbnb. be. Like that was the most important thing. There weren't, of course, people had other offers, but I think you can kind of figure out from those offers, are you excited to be here or not? So that was probably the first thing. The second thing I think is trying to understand the true motivations of the people that were there, like Lowe, why are you here? And we did something we call culture interviews that I think the founders have written about or there's probably content online about this. We did a lot of

culture interviews early on to try to figure out we got the people that were there that mapped our core values and we're really excited to work on Airbnb. And I think finally, I don't know how this happened. Like we did pick people from diverse backgrounds. Like most startups don't have most of the PMs being former founders. But that, I believe that was the case for the first like 10 or 12 or 15 PMs at Airbnb. A lot of us were former founders. And I think that that made a big difference for how you make decisions and how you get started on things. And I think I actually see this a lot in the Airbnb founders. They really care about the time at YC and they tried to recreate YC inside Airbnb a couple of times

with demo day and with sort of like new products, completely isolated from the rest, starting with doing things that don't scale and talking to customers. So I think that that experience, like, had a big impact on them. but it's hard to say these two things go and apply these things. It's actually kind of hard to say, well, that will work at it as Airbnb. I think that's a really tricky question to answer.

The last thing I would say is like, Airbnb had an incredible business model and incredible business from early on, and it was hard to fail. And what I mean by that is, it's hard to fail with a company. You can fail with individual things inside the company, but a company was still going to succeed.

And I think we all felt that. And a lot of companies don't have the, the ability to sort of like take risks like Airbnb did early on because they don't have something that's so obviously great. That's a really interesting point in the last piece that you may have the most amazing culture and hire incredibly well, but if the company doesn't work out, it's not going to be looked back as like, wow, that was really, that was an amazing experience, but we failed. Yeah, that's interesting.

So you mentioned YC, and this kind of is a good segue to where I want to focus most of our time. You mentioned that you've worked with over 600 companies at this point. which is absurd. It feels like it's, you get to statistical significance on takeaways at this point of what works and doesn't work. So I have just a bunch of questions about your experience working at YC and all these companies. The first is, I think about this quote that Elad Gill tweeted once and he wrote a think of post about it. Hella Gill is a legendary angel investor. He said that starting in companies an act of desperation. You're either desperate to change the trajectory of your career or you're desperate to make a bunch of money.

You're desperate to achieve some kind of mission or build a specific product that you're just like, I need this to exist. I'm curious if you agree with that sentiment. And then I have a follow-up question around that. Yeah, actually, I haven't heard it before, but you know me. I'm an optimistic person. I think it probably reflects on my view of this question. But I would say, desperation sounds like a negative place that you're starting at. I actually think that most people to start companies start from a positive place. But the motivations, I agree with what he said, can be very diverse for successful founders. So we actually asked this in one of the early group office hours sessions. We asked them, why are you doing this? And we don't want to hear an answer.

It's like, I found this niche of the market. Like, that's not the Y. The Y is like, why will you come in and work late after four years when you have no money left and everything's going to shit? Then the niche market is not the answer. There's something deeper than that. And we've learned that it varies a lot for people's motivations to start companies. Some of them just want to solve some technical problem that they feel a passion about solving.

Some of them want to prove themselves in front of others or prove themselves towards themselves. Some have grand, really important motivations to change the world. And they will say things like, I want to give everyone water or I want to solve climate change or I want to democratize publishing. You can imagine any number of like large ideas. and some people just want to start a big company and just want to be successful. And it doesn't matter in my experience

what your motivation is. I don't think either of these motivations. It sounds like some of them would be better than others. In my experience, it's not the case. The motivation will change over time to just running this thing, right? Like when something becomes big, it's hard to think every day about exactly why you get started

because the motivation just like, it can be fun and work on boring things because it's fun to build something big. Like, everything doesn't have to be shiny and big and grandiose because there are many ideas that are quote unquote boring. But just the idea of running the company becomes the motivation eventually. That is really interesting that one of the main things you look for, it sounds like when you're interviewing is how strong and durable is that drive to build this company? Is that what you're saying? It's actually kind of hard for screen for motivation, I would say, in interviews, because the purpose of this kind of officer question is to highlight why someone is there.

and highlight that diversity of reasons people are there and sometimes even highlight from one founder to another co-founder why they are doing this. They might have never talked about this. Actually, surprisingly often, founders have not talked about why they're doing this. And just knowing why someone is here really helps with conflict resolution, for example,

really helps with sort of like understanding why someone is there on a certain day or something like that. So it's not something we screen for as much as I think we try to help founders discover this among themselves. and really know this about themselves. And I've just accepted that the motivations to start companies is widely diverse. Do you ever discourage founders from starting a company when you see that maybe it won't be a durable kind of lasting motivation or whatever other reasons? Just knowing how hard starting a company ends up being.

It's a good question. I would say sometimes if someone doesn't have a motivation or don't know why they're doing this, they're doing this because they read that it would be a natural career step. So like a good reason to not start a company is if you think of starting a company as a career step, Well, it is not. Because if it's successful, it'll be your whole entire career. It'll be 10 years, most likely. And if it's not successful, then it's not something that people generally aspire to to start.

So I think people will start companies because this is sort of like something that when it put on their resume, they have not understood what startups are or why you should do them. Sometimes you can screen and kind of figure this out. But sometimes people don't even know why the starting company when they get started and it kind of it's figured out along the way. And that's okay. So I don't want to discourage people. You don't know exactly why I start

this company to start a company. Like they might figure out along the way and find the true motivation sort of like after doing this for a little bit or finding that is really fun. So I think I discourage people to start startups if there are so many other things that are important in their life that are more important than the startup. So if there are financial constraints or, family constraints or relationship constraints and they are going to trump this,

then yeah, you should think a second time perhaps because startups are hard. They're much harder than a normal job. Like equally hard if they're successful or failure, right? They're not actually, there's no middle way we're like, oh, my company is doing great so I can chill. That's not doesn't work that way either. So I don't really discourage or encourage people. I just want them to have all the information.

You mentioned YC office hours, and I had a question around this. I'm working on this piece where I'm interviewing a bunch of B2B founders of companies that are doing super well. And I asked them a few questions like, how did you come up with idea, how did you find your first few customers? And it's shocking how many of them bring up a conversation in YC office hours as the most pivotal point that set them on the trajectory that there are now. And I'm curious what happens in these office hours? What are the most common pieces of advice that you give or maybe most surprising piece of advice that you give in these office hours so that people can get maybe a glimpse into these conversations you have? So at why say we have two type of officers, two of the common ones. We have regular office hours, which is usually a 101 or basically the founder's talking to me or me plus another partner.

And they happen every week or every other week throughout the entire program. and they happen years after the program on the regular basis. Then we have group office hours, which is you and like six or seven other startups talking to us. And they have a little bit different purpose. So the goal of the regular officer, I always ask the question, what's holding you back from moving faster?

And we don't want to hear updates. We don't want to hear strategy questions. We want to understand what's slowing you down or what's holding you back from moving even faster. You generally have a specific goal. And I think that question, like, what's slowing you down or we're holding you back? Crystallizes like the priorities. There are only so many things you can do as a startup.

And there are only only so many things that matters at that stage. And by asking that question, so we can start digging into, okay, what's the goal? What are the things that drives towards that goal? Where are the things that slowing you down towards that goal? And usually the founders don't know what's slowing it down. So the conversation and us probing questions actually leads to, to us or them discovering what it is to slowing them down. In the group office hour, it's a little bit different.

Group office are built a couple of different purposes. One of them is, if I think back on Paul and Jessica's motivation to start YC, this is a surprise to them, but starting a company is incredibly lonely. You can't really lean on your employees and say, hey, I'm feeling really shitty as a founder today, like everything is going to shit. Employees isn't going to tick that well. So you lean on perhaps your investors, but they're not really available,

but what you can lean on is other founders because they're all in the same situation. And it's sort of like when you ask your founder the question, how are things going? It's so emotional for them to answer that question because it's never going well, right? It's never like, oh, everything is going fantastic. Like they might say that, but everybody knows.

All founders, when you look each other's eyes, then no, that's not the answer. So founders have infinite number of problems that they're thinking about all the time, which is why they're allergic to the question. how are things going. But when YC started, we put all the founders in a group together in a room, and they started learning that all founders, all companies are broken in some way, right? They're all having these massive problems and they're all feeling that anxiety when they hear the question,

how are things going? And just hearing other founders, explaining their problems, perhaps solving their problems, is a really good way for yourself to both feel motivated to do it yourself and see how problems get solved when other companies having similar problems. Nowadays, because of the scale of I see, we group companies together that have the same problems or the same area that they're operating in. And the second thing that group officers do well is accountability, right? We ask you,

where are your goals? And what were we goals for last two weeks? Did you hit them? And then that gives founders accountability because founders are competitive. They don't want to look bad. They don't want to come back after two weeks and say, nothing worked. Or at least like, we didn't learn anything. They want to learn something and make progress, whether it's positive or negative.

And group officers to me is the most magical moment because it really creates this very intense three or four month period. And founders often come back to us after YC and say, hey, we want to do that again. We don't have this really intense, like a really productive period. And we don't have a program exactly like we see. We have other programs, but we don't have anything exactly that mimics that experience. But we do encourage founders to continue with group officers after YC. And many of them do. and many of them ad hoc continue to meet for years in this group setting where they ask the same

kind of questions to each other, to hold themselves accountable, to learn from each other, and to just have someone else to lean on. And I think this was unknown. And somehow the world didn't know before that starting company is super lonely and you have all these anxiety. And by just talking to other people who have the same problems is just like one of the best thing you can do. There's so many things that come up when you talk about this. One is I worked at a startup at one point and we worked in a co-working space and we joined the co-working space because we're like, oh, we'll meet other founders, it'll be social, we won't be all alone. But it turns out everyone's just like heads down, headphones on. I just, I don't have time for anything. I just need

to work. And it's like a microcosm of that experience that even you're surrounded by founders. No one has time to do anything. They're just, they're working. You got to schedule it and force it and put the laptops on the floor and the phones on the floor and you just like sit there with pen and paper. That's how you have to do it. And we tried to mimic that as much as we could over Zoom, but honestly, the best experience of this was in person, in a ring in Mountain View, with no computers, and everyone just paying attention to everyone. That was the best experience. And yeah, that's what I remember is like one of the most meaningful parts of YC. I didn't have it myself when I did YC, but now everyone has it.

The other thing this made me think about is someone tweeted once, don't ever ask a founder how they're doing or how it's going. It just creates all this anxiety because nothing's ever going Don't do it. Everybody looks at each other's eyes and they know that the question, they're allergic to that question. That's hilarious. So just to summarize the questions you said you asked, the one is in the individual office hours, it's what's holding you back? And then in the group setting, what was the question again that you ask? What are your goals for next two weeks? And what were your goals for the last two weeks? And did you hit the goals? And if you didn't hit them like, what came in the way of hitting the goals? It's very simple. And that can uncover lots of problems that other founders are having. exactly in the same way. And just by talking about the things that held you back or the things that allowed you to hit your goals and cover something material for the other seven companies sitting in that ring.

If you kind of zoomed out a little bit and thought about the startups you've worked with, what would you say are the most common mistakes that early-stage startups make broadly? There's so many. I mean, like this is how I initially learned about startups by going, searching for that on Google and landing on Paul Graham's articles because he kept, I think I've written many articles about this topic because it is so, it is so common. So this topic can go on forever. But if I take like the most recent experience of how to NYC, I would say startups fail,

one, because they don't talk to customers. If you don't talk to customers or users, you don't actually know what's important. And if you don't know what's important, it doesn't matter what you build. It doesn't matter kind of what ideas you have in your head if you don't actually know what it is that you need to build. and you don't validate it with customers. That's where a lot of the failure stems from. And a lot of early YSC for us,

or early part of the program is us pushing and probing founders to be like, tell us about the conversation you've had with your customers. What did you learn? Can you show us the organizations or like all these questions? Like, what are the software they using? What are they paying for?

What problems do they have? How are they describing the intensity of that problem? So that's what we spend a lot of time early on at YC. after that, I would say one of the common mistakes I'm not talking about generally startups here. I'm talking inside YC. The second most common thing I see in SwyC

is people are just afraid to talk to customers. So once they're just not trying hard enough to get in front of customers. And I think this comes from technical people tend to think that software is just a solution to everything. But really what you need to do is to talk to someone or resume or phone or in person even better.

And people are just afraid of doing that. And they're afraid of being rejected. They're afraid of these are common people that want to build good products are just really afraid of people saying no. The problem is, which anyone hasn't done sales before that joined YC, they realize this, is that if you take the average customer group in the world, 90% are not early adopters. It doesn't matter if you have something new and cool that's not interested.

They are not incentivized to take risks in their, job to try something new, they're just incentivized to not take risks and just continue what they're doing. And those 10% are the early doctors are the ones that you actually want to reach. But that means you have to reach 10 to find one. And they have convinced that one person to get on the phone or a video call with you. And that takes work. And it takes a lot of work. And I think people don't really think of this. This is common knowledge, basic stuff for salespeople, but founders who never done sales before just get surprised by the percentages and the sort of like what it means to do this. If I think of more generally, outside of YC,

so these are two kind of things I experienced within YC. I think generally outside of YC, I would say the two most common problems, the same one is talk to customers, the other one is not being technical and not knowing what it takes to build a successful technology company. And it means having technical founders, and it means being able to build the first prototype.

And this is something we screen for when we interview people in YC, and we aren't accepting a whole lot of team that don't know how to build or get their first prototype built themselves because we know it is like a super common value pattern. And I can go on and on and on and on for this one. But honestly, if I drill down, like,

what makes companies fail? It's quite simple. It's just like they don't talk to users, which means they don't find product market fit. And if they don't find product market fit, and like nothing else really matters. And what mistakes do people make is like, It's all about that.

It's all about talking to customers and learning that you're building something that's actually useful. Why I see it's like headline is make things people want. And that's, it's still true. And it's always going to be true. This is really interesting and good advice. It's interesting that like talk to customers. People hear that all the time. Like, of course, we're going to talk to customers.

We're going to do that, of course. And your experience is they know this, but they just don't do it. Probably because they're afraid. Yes. Maybe also because they think they already know what they need to build and like, yeah, we're good. And you have all these validators, right? So the people are validating that even if you don't talk to customers, why has he accepted you?

This investor invested in you. This investor said you were great, like blah, blah, blah. Like all these different validations that you confuse with product market fit, right? Like we have to remind everyone on the first Airwacy. None of you have product market fit because you probably don't, right? Almost nobody has. Because people confuse this external validation with the thing that matters the most, which is talking to customers and learning.

what matters. And people just don't, it's just like a thing that just keeps coming back. Some get really good at it. And that is the source of successful startups is when you really get good at this. It reminds me coming back to Airbnb, one of the most important moments in Airbnb history was Paul Graham telling the founders of Airbnb. Where are your customers? And they're like, oh, they're in New York. And he's like, why are you talking to me and not in New York right now talking to them? They talk about that all the time. Yeah, it's absolutely true. I think he wrote the article, do things that don't scale as a learning. The learning there was the Airbnb founders

doing the trips to New York and learning about how to build Airbnb, which is a very counterintuitive idea, which is when you have to spend the most amount of time with your customers. And I think Airbnb is sort of like one of the best stories inside YC of doing this well.

This also reminds me. I've been talking to a bunch of founders recently. I asked them, how many customers have you talked to to help figure out this idea? So just the other day, it was 150 financial, like, CROs that they talked to before they actually started raising this round.

Another company, actually to Airbnb guys that started. They actually ran ads, I think, on LinkedIn to find specific people to talk to to that specific role. And they talked to probably at least 100, maybe 200. So there's a strong correlation there. Yeah, I think that's the volumes that people don't expect. Like, they think they might have to talk to five, but I think you have to talk to like 25 to 50.

That means you have to reach out to a lot more to be able to get to people that are potentially early adopters. And those ones you talk to are also the ones to become your customers. So, like, you're already doing most of the sales by just doing this work anyway. Do you have maybe, like, one tactical tip you could share of just either getting over your fear of talking to customers or just, like, holding yourself accountable to actually doing it? Yeah, I tell this story. I actually told the story yesterday. So remember when you sign up for a service, that's a cool service and you hear about on TechCrunch or something like that, and then you realize you already signed up a year ago.

Right? And then you're like, from the founder's perspective, you sign up to something you never used it. So the founders, who build those services, their inclination to think is that everybody hates me

because they sign up and they never used me. They never used a service. And the fear of that is basically the fear of rejection. So if I put my thing out there and most people use it, then they will tell all their friends how shitty this thing is,

you should never use. even sign up for it. That's the fear people have. But the truth is that people sign up for it and be like, oh, I'm busy. I got something else to do. And they actually don't remember or care. So whenever you sign up for something that you sign up a year ago, think of yourself that is the common customer experience, which is that you just sign up for a lot of stuff you don't even remember. You don't, it just doesn't, like, you never have this like, I hate this thing reaction. You always have this like, I'm indifferent to this thing. I don't actually care to even like complete the sign of flow or or try it out, right? And I think that's,

the thing that people need to remember is that the worst thing that can happen to start up is not that people hate what you're doing, is that they're completely indifferent to what you're doing. So not the worst thing, but the most common thing that happens is people just indifferent. But it doesn't give you a second chance. Let's say it always gives you a second chance. And you really need to internalize that people have busy lives. And if people don't actually use what you sign up, what you're building, that's fine. You can reach out to them a year from now or six months from now or two weeks from now.

And they probably will. if you make some improvements. And I think people just have this fear that if I get a lot of rejection, that means everything is bad. But the rejection should be put in context to the early adopter idea and that most people don't care, are not early adopters, don't want to dig into new things. And the more narrow of a solution you have to a specific problem,

the fewer people actually want to dig in. But that's where you have to start, because you cannot build the whole thing right at front and make everybody loves you. That doesn't really work that way. Even Airbnb was like air mattresses or staying in someone's homes when they're home. That was not the complete solution of Airbnb,

but there were early adopters who dug in and be like, yep, I like that. I like those two things. I want to have people stay in my living room on an mattress. But that's not what Airbnb is about today, and a lot of those things were unknown at the time. But I think people are just afraid of rejection,

and you just need to overcome that fear and just learn that like, there's nothing that's really that bad that can happen when people don't use a service or sign up and don't care. Like, it's not really that bad. It reminds me of a quote that I love from Mark Andreessen that everyone's time is already allocated. They don't have space for your product right now. They already have plans for their day. And it takes a lot to convince someone to like change their, like pay attention to anything. And I guess that just comes back to why it's so important that your product is solving a real pain and not just like a nice little toy that is like better than what's out there,

but not so much better that you're like, I need this right now. So maybe just along those lines, do you have any thoughts on just like the importance of that pain and just like how critical that is? I actually recorded, I'm happy about these videos, but I recorded two videos on YouTube

as part of YC startup school last fall. And you cannot watch them on YouTube right now. One of them is how to talk to users and the other one is how you sell or how you use sales. and the one about talking to users, I think there's a difference in asking someone, do you have a problem with XYC? Is this podcasting setup working for you?

And people say, yeah, it's kind of working. But if you are in podcasting setup experts and you watch people use some other thing that's really shitty, they might also think that is pretty good. But you have to watch them do it. And the best way for you to figure out what is the intensity of their problem is not to ask them, but to watch them, or to watch them solve the thing that they do.

You know how a lot of non-technical people don't know how to automate things. So they will do the same thing in like Excel, like a million times, like by just like tabbing, because that's the only thing that they know. And they're not technical enough to write some kind of script to do it. And you just have to watch those people to just feel the pain. You can't actually ask them how difficult is it to do X, Y, C, because they won't even know that it's that difficult to them. So the best thing I've learned about how to discover the pain is to watch people,

have them screen share, have them walk you through their daily workflow about the area where you're doing some discovery. That is the best thing. And like, I'll give you another example, right? So there's a bunch of ways companies that are doing EV charging for electric cars. And they're like, what are the problems in EV charging? And I was like, you know, just rent an EV and go and charge at all the non-Tesla chargers and see what they say.

I'll see what you experience. And the truth is that it's just like garbage. A lot of EV charging systems are just so shitty. And the apps are like terrible. You just have to just use them yourself to know how bad it is. It's cool how often it just comes back to just like go do the thing. Like do things that don't scale. Classic.

Classic YC advice. I wanted to come back to something you mentioned that I want to pull a thread on as the technical co-founder being technical early on just to kind of cover that. So I know YC looks to having a technical co-founder, it's an important variable and you're deciding to accept a company. Say someone doesn't have a technical co-founder. Do you have any advice for what they could do? Like what often can work?

Yeah. I think the first thing is to understand the value of technical co-founder. So some people are in this trouble or in the situation where they have an idea of something they want to build and they don't have anyone to help build it. I had a friend Paul who gave this incredible quote. He said, I have an idea for a song. I just need a musician to help me make it.

That's kind of similar to how it is with engineering. And if you view output of engineering as like, I just have an idea for song, I just need someone to actually make it for me, then you're not valuing software engineering or mechanical engineering or any engineering skill set set deep enough, right? The truth is that the engineering part is the really hard part.

And the first thing I would say is you need to learn how to value the engineering piece. And let me give an example of how you don't do. that. You applied to YC and you have 90% for yourself and 10% for the engineer. You're basically saying, they're like, oh, the engineering part of this company is only worth one-tenth of me and the non-technical person. So that to me is a signal that you're not really value engineering. Okay, so how do you go out about and find someone? Well, the truth is that there are a lot of technical co-founders. The technical people, they also want to fund business co-funders. They don't want to do other part. They don't want to do sales. And they actually don't really care

that much about fundraising. They just want to solve the problem. And that's fine. And we built something called co-funder matching where those funders can meet. But if you don't participate in that, you can just start by asking the best technical people that you know. Are you interested in starting a company with me? You know, same thing with rejection.

Many of them will just say, no, I have a great job. I'm really happy. But some of them will have thought about starting a company for a while and was hoping that someone would come and ask them to do that. So you have to kind of like remove your fears and go and ask the best people. The reason you want to have a technical co-founder and not a hired engineer or not a hired contracting team is because so many of the decisions you're going to make are technical and so many of the iterations you're going to make relies on engineering. And if you don't understand that, you won't actually make the right decisions anyway. It's not like Starbucks you have an idea for a product, you build a product and you're done.

There's infinite number of iterations in that process. And then finally, I would say a lot of people learn how to code themselves. right? So there are a lot of places online that you can learn the skill set that takes to build a prototype. You might not be the best engineers. There are many successful startup founders who are not the best engineers

because they stop coding when they hired three or four engineers. That's fine. But you need to be sufficiently good that you understand the value of engineering and you understand that the best way to solve most of the problem is with software.

And there are a lot of founders who just, for whatever reason, study something else. that doesn't have to be a conscious or very precise reason that you had when you were like 18 or 19 and then you're 25, you know, like, I wish you had a code and then just learn a code and they learn how to code. Like, it's like not not that more difficult than that. Have you ever seen a startup work out if they had a contracting firm like engineering firm build the product? Like does that ever work or where you just like, no, do not ever do this? Basically, I can't recall any specific ones

where people have a contracting firm, but I recall founders where, let's, say you had two non-technical founders, but they valued engineering and they had an ability to build a team of great people that were not co-founders, and they gave them equity and they become successful. There are many examples of that, I would say, but I don't remember any specific examples where, like, you had a contracting team building the whole thing. And I think the reason for that is it takes more than just sort of like writing a spec to build a product. You can't actually expect yourself to a great product. You have to just, like, be part of the of the iterations yourself.

And that's why I think someone being the engineer, having the idea of what the iteration looks like and just doing it is how you do things. And I think that the cases where I've seen non-technical founders make this work is that they have

really good engineering teams who feel like their founding team. It might not be co-founders per why I see that definition of having 10%, but they feel like they're the founding team. This reminds me of a story of just a recent podcast. Interview I did with the CPO of Call and Lee.

she talked about how when Kalinley started, they actually had a Ukrainian deaf team built the first product, and not only did they help them build the first product, they actually ended up driving the first, all the growth initially, because they saw Kalanli and started using it within their firm, and then everyone that they knew started using it

and spread within Ukraine, and they actually continue to work with that firm. Like, they're still the inch team for Kalanli or some part of it. Wow. Wow, that's cool. There's a success start. I would say it's certainly the case that in some countries, people have other jobs while they start the startups.

So like the engineers, like in Ukraine, for example, or in Eastern Europe, it's very common that if they start their own startup, they actually have a full-time job as a contractor while they start in the startup because that's how you pay the bill. Because often you can't raise money. And that's fine too. Amazing. Just that's some hustle.

This episode is brought to you by Pando, the always-on employee performance platform. How much do you love the performance review process? Mm, yeah. It's time-consuming, subjective, biased, and there's rarely any transparency. With the rapid shift to distributed work, it's a struggle to create the structure and transparency that you want to help your employees have the highest impact and growth in their careers. Pando is disrupting the old paradigm of performance management, including a continuous employee-centric

approach, so employees stay engaged, see their progression in real time, and know exactly when and how they can level up. With Pando, managers can leverage competency-based frameworks to effectively coach and develop their teams and align on consistent growth standards, resulting in higher quality feedback and higher performing teams. Visit Pando.com slash Lenny for more info and get a special discount when you sign up and reference this podcast.

That's pando.com slash Lenny. I want to zoom out a little bit and ask another big question and see if you have what answer you have for this. If you just think about the most successful startups, NYC, or even just the companies you worked with, if it's to pick just like one or two attributes of what's most common across successful companies, what would that be? I would say the most common reason that I've seen founders succeed or companies succeed, it comes down to the founders and characteristics of those individuals.

The most important characteristics of those individuals are they're really determined to win and they don't give up when things are hard, and they have an internal motivation that's just really infectious to people around them, which is how they end up building really good teams around them. People are actually going to want to go and work for them. And I have numerous examples of people like this, where the CEO or one of the founders

are just really inspirational people. The second thing I would say is they are technical. So that's kind of like they're technical enough. than like if I would grade companies on a scale of like technical to less technical, more technical founders are more successful, are more likely to succeed, I would say. And then I would say they figure how to talk to users and move fast early on. So they don't wait for permission from their investors or from YC or from someone else to

make progress. They're like every day or every week. There's continuous progress. And they're not doing this for someone else. they're doing this for the customers. There's no one else that's like actually the, they're not doing this for the investors, that's for sure. The investors is sort of like in the way more or less.

And they're just naturally focusing on the customers. Finally, what I would say is the skill that's really attributed to great founders is excellent communication skills. So the ability to communicate really complicated ideas, clearly, to enjoy the communication part, right? enjoying communication is often kind of correlate with enjoying during fundraising, which is an important part of some company's success, not all of them, but for some of them.

And I would say communication and storytelling is part of the same arc, right? And those are part of the same thing that actually motivates people around you. If you can communicate what you're building and why it's important to the world, tell a story about that. That can motivate people around you, just want to follow you. And I think it's rare that I've seen founders succeed, where the founder isn't in some way an inspirational person or someone that is a good communicator.

Most of the time, you at least have respect or you have, you somewhere know that they're going to succeed, right? And that is what inspires you to be around them or be on their team. That is a really cool list. So just to kind of summarize,

one, they have the strong will to win. And with that, they're inspirational. They kind of pull people along and get people really excited. Two is they're more likely to succeed if they're technical and can build the thing.

Three, they figure out how to talk to customers. Don't wait. Just start doing it. And they're just like obsessed with that versus like what investors want them to do. And they kind of don't want to talk to the investors to make time for the customers. And then excellent communication skills, which kind of comes back to the first. They're like they're able to story tell and get people excited. Is that right? Yeah.

I would say those are attributes of successful things. To be a super successful company, there's something else that about. happen. And those things are not things you can put on a list because they're, they are the outliers, right? Like, if you look at it's like startups on a typical wise they bash, there'll be a couple billion dollar companies. Those are the outliers. They almost certainly have all the things that we talked about. And many other companies in the batch will have that too. But then what makes someone a true outlier is something that is unknown. That's why so many investors said no to Airbnb when they were not trying to raise money because

that was an outlier idea. Like it was an idea that was not logical and did not make sense in most people. And those kind of ideas, like the ones that end up succeeding often don't make sense to people. And there's something, there's some reason that no one has done this before, because they're just not natural next step of the world. That's a great segue to a question I've been meeting to ask, which is how good are you at predicting in a batch which startups are going to be the monster hits? So maybe like you and then just generally why see, like how good are you at knowing what's going to work out, like, is it going to be the next Airbnb or Dropbox? I think the truth is that we're not very good at knowing what's going to succeed.

We're not, certainly we cannot figure out who's going to be the really successful company in the batch. Like, that's not possible. What we're good at is knowing what failure looks like. And what we sometimes like to tell founders at the beginning of the batch is like, if you fail, please do it in some new, exciting way, not one that we've seen a hundred times. Because we have seen people fail for a large number of, of reasons and the best way for us to make, to sort of like, not predict, but like, the best way for us to make more companies succeed is to tell them how they might fail, right? Like, be very

direct and honest with them and say, you're doing these three things. These things are likely going to lead that you won't succeed. Right. And if we do our job well, most people get that feedback and they're on the track for succeeding. Now, which of those companies end up becoming the best? there are so many things that are uncorrelated to being the best. And it's the things that people don't, like, I'm in a hot industry. I was written up on TechCrunch, like, this investors are talking to me. Like, you'd be surprised how many of the things I just mentioned are uncorrelated to outlier success, right? And that's why it's so hard to actually do this.

And I think people really want these questions to be answered. People really want to believe that you can pick really great companies at the C stage. But everything I've learned from the plus six hundred companies that I've worked with is that it's just not that easy and it's maybe not even possible. And certainly not possible when you talk about like finding the outlier companies. I don't think it's that that easy. And if it was easy, then we would accept a lot fewer companies. We just accept those ones. But it's just not that easy.

Do you have a sense of which ones are like likely to work out better than others? Or is it just like we have 150 really unclear, but one of these hopefully? one good, good indicator is if each new office hour, there is really exciting new stuff, right? We're not talking about the same thing. We talked about two weeks ago or four weeks ago. They've already done that stuff, right? Like, oh, I was trying to sell to these three customers.

Well, they already bought it. I'm not actually talking to seven others. And now we are talking about a different price and different product because they're like, they want more of what we're doing, right? If I'm experiencing that and that's like a consistent trend, then when people draw this revenue graph, like this 10% weekly growth rate kind of situation, those are the companies that we attribute that to.

If you're able to make that progress on that short amount of time scale, you're on track to do something well. Now, a lot of other things have to go well for you to ultimately be able to succeed, but progress on this weekly or biweekly time scale is a really good indicator of someone who will succeed. To me, much better indicator. than I am in this market or I'm talking to this investor or something like that. But those are much worse indicators of someone succeeding than I'm making progress and it's pretty

fast clip. Interesting. And so what I'm hearing is at the beginning of a batch, we're just like in a bit on a bunch of companies that have a lot of potential founders technical maybe. They have the strong will to win and all these things. Through the batch, you're looking at the companies that are exceeding your expectations week to week in terms of progress that they're making. I mean, sometimes it could be different reasons

but people are not making progress, but if you're making continuous progress, and I think Paul and Jessica said this, this was true early days in YC, if you are hitting your goals and you're making progress continuously, if that continues, like that's a really strong correlation to some success.

But again, going back to the question, can we predict who's going to be the best ones? No, and that's why we really focus on trying to make people not to fail, especially good teams can't fail. Like, if you have a really talented team who's really technical and not to build product, but they make some other basic mistakes,

like not talking to customers or something like that or trying to build everything all at once. I feel like it's our responsibility to make sure they don't make the basics mistakes that we've seen many times. We need to help them at least make some spectacular mistake that we haven't seen before. Then that's a high potential team. If someone is on a good track for a decent, a decent idea, but they're still early, that's really good, good potential. I have kind of a fun question that I wanted to try,

which is kind of connected to this idea around attributes of successful founders and companies. So I have this founder friend named Flo, and he was asking me recently, if you had to think about the most successful founders, which attributes do they have? And he kind of gave me this list and it's kind of like two ends of a spectrum. So I thought it would be fun to just go through this list and see in your experience, which end of the spectrum, if any, are associated and correlated with the most successful founders. Does that sound good?

Sure. the suit. Okay, so the first is speed versus quality. Is there in the spectrum where you find that most successful founders are either speed focused or quality focused? Sometimes founders ask us this question. What should I focus on growth or retention? And the answer is they're asking us for permission to not do one or the other. The truth is to succeed, you have to do both. I would argue that speed versus quality, there's different level of speed and different level of quality, different stages of the company. But the truth is that you always have to move fast and you have to understand. understand what the meaning of quality is. So I think I actually don't see that as a spectrum, but I would say if you move fast with talking to customers, you'll build something that have potential of having quality because you know a lot about the problem.

I think what people think about quality, they often think about what is my personal definition of quality. I have a bar of quality, but quality to me of a good product idea or a good startup idea has more to do what the customer think is valuable. and if you move fast by talking to customers and having customer learnings and know the problems, then you will actually come up with something that's high quality. So they're not at a spectrum.

All right. Let's try another one. Confidence versus humility as a founder. I don't think that they're in a spectrum. I think that learning to protect confidence as a founder is critical going back to this communication piece of motivating people around you, right? I wouldn't want to join a company where the founder is completely not confident

in their own idea, right? Because that's going to shine through. An investor isn't going to want to invest in someone who's completely not confident in that idea. So learning to first build your own confidence for what you're working on and then protecting that confidence to the people around you,

I think it's critical. And a lot of people will have doubt around you. And if you're not predicting that confidence, there's not clear that anybody else will, if you're the founder. Like, you're the one who's have to do it. And I think that you can protect that confidence while having a strong sense of humility towards the people around you. But I think when it comes to startups learning to have that confidence is an important piece of the early days.

And especially if you're building something that's very difficult that takes a lot of work and a lot of money, protecting the confidence that you will succeed is critical for everybody that's doubting you. And those doubting you is a lot of people around you, right? And you just need to have an unnatural amount of confidence to prove them wrong. And I think that, again, this is not on a spectrum with humility. In fact, the most successful founders are often the most, like, you cannot inspire people around you if you don't have a strong sense of humility. People don't actually want to spend time with you, which means they don't want to work

for you or invest in you. So these are, again, you need both, but they serve different purposes when you get started. Tough gig this founder life. You got to be everything. Let's see if there's a big difference in this next one. execution and tactics versus focusing on strategy and kind of higher level stuff, like how deep the founders go that you find that are most successful? So this one actually I've had a strong opinion about.

I think that the reason that we talk about strategy a lot is because it goes back to business school. And business school, the origin of business school was to teach people to join the corporate world. In the corporate world, strategy matters, right? So like when you join a big company, you're employee number 2010 something. then you probably might have a business school like job where thinking about corporate strategy is an important thing.

When you are a small startup, strategy does not matter. Because there's not that much of strategy I was about. Maybe later on, it might be fruitful to think about strategy, but strategy kind of assumes that you can do multiple things at the same time, which small startups cannot. They can just do one thing at the same time.

So execution is the thing that matters for companies. And whenever someone wants to have a strategy conversation, it assumes that they don't understand their priorities. And the priorities is always a list from one, like, from top to bottom, where there's one thing that's more important than the others. And you can't really have a strategy session about the other things because there's only one thing to work on. So to me, there's a clear answer here is that good founders are execution-oriented,

and they just continually have one priority of what they're trying to go for, and then just hitting that priority all the time, and then new parties will come up. And you don't really have time to have a discussion about company strategy. Company strategy also seems that you have product market fit, because you already have something that's working. If you don't have that, then getting to people wanting your product, that is your strategy. You don't have any other strategy.

Awesome. Okay. We found one that's quite different, one in the spectrum or the other. How about autocratic and kind of like, I don't know, I think of Steve Jobs like versus kind of consensus collaborative driven. If this is a spectrum at all and then where do you find founders might fit? that are most successful? I don't know if I haven't answered that question because I think when you work at early

stage, you might look different than when you work at late stage. And I don't spend a lot of time with founders to have thousands of employees and hearing how they are. And when I talk to those founders, I talk to them 101. And I only hear from their perspective. So I don't actually know how they are appearing in a large corporate setting. But when you're a small company, you're three people or five people or 10 people, you cannot be an autocratic decision maker.

like the founding team have a founding team decision-making dynamic that could look different. Sometimes it's like everybody decides together on everything. And sometimes you say, I have my area expertise and you have yours and we split it up the decision-making. And either of those things are fine, I think. You just have to have a process so you don't rehash every decision after you made them like a million times.

And I would say like the thing that matters the most at that point is to be willing to adhere to the process that you and your founding team have come up with. And your individual nature could be different, right, in a different role and a different company. But for a startup to work out, you have to have a specific process on how you make decisions. And those are on a very short sprints, like weekly or biweekly. And everyone needs to feel good about decisions after the fact. At least they feel good about the process.

And I don't think that you can just decide. You can also be fully collaborative. if everyone gets decided by everything. So small startups agree on how they decide together. So after that, everyone just followed the process. That's usually that things work out. Okay, I go one more. Cares more about the product or it cares more about the distribution and growth strategy.

Well, there's a lot of kind of assumptions built into that, I would say, because caring about the product to me is caring about the customers. And sometimes when, if I would say something like, oh, great funders care about the product. a lot of founders misinterpret that as in my personal perception of the product or my ideas of what the product is. And that's wrong. The right perception there is the expectations or the use of the product from the customers. So if you're meeting folks on the product or cares about the product in that sense that

your customers care about, then absolutely I think that's a really, really critical, important thing to have early on, like talking to users, doing things you don't scale. Once you get big, if you don't figure out a scalable distribution strategy, you won't succeed. And those are different for different companies, but they're not doing things they don't scale. Like doing things that don't scale is not a scalable strategy. Eventually something specific will be the things that work for you. If you're lucky, people will talk about your product and you'll have organic growth. But in many cases, that sales, that is some kind of like consumer distribution strategy.

And you can't start with that. I've seen a lot. And this is what I had to like reset my thinking coming from a growth team. team joining YC is you can't start a startup with the growth team mindset because that is just scalable things all the time. And really what you need to go back to is doing things that don't scale and unscale your way of thinking about customers. But it's really useful to have the growth mindset once something is working. Once you have 1,000 people signing up for your thing every day, well, how do you get to 2,000? Well, that's actually, that's probably something that

looks more like this thing that the growth team would do or distribution team would do. And I would say everyone has different experiences of this based on their prior experience, right? So if you work for a company that was infinitely successful, then you won't care so much about this. If you work for Google, you'll never even think about this because distribution is just like the website. But if you work for a really small shitty product, then you think a lot about distribution because that's natural to you on how you succeed. So I think at the end of the day, talking to customers in the matters the most, that is what it means to care about a product to me. And then distribution is something that you will definitely invest a lot in once

something is working. Awesome. All right. I have probably 100 other questions I want to ask along these lines, but I want to make sure we get to another topic, which I know is near and dear to your heart, which is climate tech. So my understanding is you're instrumental in pushing YC to focus on climate tech as a focus area. I believe you led the charge on their initial request for startups, I think is the term where you all put out. Like here's who we want to fund. And I think you've mentioned you funded a couple of dozen climate tech companies in the last few batches. Is that all generally correct? First request for startup was actually Sam Altman and a few other folks that was kind of the one who drove that.

The second one that we kind of wrote into our actual request for startup, I wrote that one. It was carbon removal specifically focused on. And then naturally the people that apply with climate tech ideas get in my reading queue of applications. And I read them and I interview them. Not all of them, but many of them. I think today we funded over 130 plus companies that are focused on climate tech in some way or another. Wow.

And the trend line is that really ambitious people who want to start companies in this area. Some of them want to start the companies because the climate tech is the number one problem. But they don't view this as a nonprofit. I want to really kind of make this distinction. People somehow think that like starting a climate tech company is doing good for the world,

but it probably doesn't have a lot more than that. The truth is that the world have decided because climate is one of the biggest problems that we're facing, if not the biggest, we've decided that we're going to stop doing the things that we're doing. And we're going to change our entire energy system and change all the things that we do that emits carbon. And we have just decided, like governments have decided this.

This is already, the question is how it's going to happen, but this decision has been made. And in that transition, we're talking about trillions of dollars of money moving from things that cause climate change to things that don't. Like, as the scale of this transition is not something we've seen recently. Like software is not that big in comparison. It actually is much smaller than this transition transition. So I think if you look at something like Tesla, which now has a, I don't know,

six, seven hundred billion dollar market cap, that's just one company that currently provides like a couple of percent of all the cars in the United States, new car soul. and that is already one of the biggest companies in the world and has now the biggest, the richest person in the world. We've only seen the beginning of this. And the economical motivation behind the decisions of people are making are just as strong as I want to fix climate change because this is just a really good business.

This change have attracted a large set of software founders that people that you and me know that listen to this podcast that said, my skills is relevant here. There are a lot of things that I can do. And if not, I can learn those things. But most importantly, the skills of working for startups is really, really critical to join business transition. And a lot of them are started companies or joining companies.

And I still get an email every week from some accomplished software engineer who asked me, which software company should I work for to fix climate change? And I've gotten those emails for two or three years now. And this thing just attracts like really, really ambitious people. And it's not stopping. It's accelerating. And I feel lucky to work with so many of these great founders because they are. are like uniquely interesting people.

I've noticed exactly the same thing of just how many smart, driven, amazing people are, like, I just want to move to a climate tech company. Like, that's all I'm looking for now. And just to give you credit, I feel like you were ahead of the curve on the shift that started to happen and pushed YC to focus on this really early. I always think like, man, I know Gustav, and I feel like Gustav has made like such a massive impact on the investment and focus in startups on. climate. And so I just want to give you huge props for doing that and being so at the forefront of a lot of this.

Thank you. I mean, sometimes I'd say that like it matters to someone who has the credibility of YC start accepting these companies. Like it does matter. And people like I remember when I spoke to Diego from Pachama in 2018 when he was starting Pachama, we were whiteboarding at YC. He was a YC alumni. He started a different company. And he, the word climate take did not exist. And people were unsure if investors would fund companies like these. And pajamas raised $60 million to have, I don't know, lots of big customers, lots of employees, and it's clearly doing really well. But I think at the time of 2018, it was kind of unknown.

And one of the reasons it was unknown is we had this previous bubble, clean tech bubble, in like 2008-209, 2010, that didn't work out because of a number of specific reasons. and people, investors were just afraid of funding things because they had some scar tissue or scar and scars from like the previous thing that happened. Now that turned on like upside down. Like the number of new investors that are investing in climate tech is as big of a trend as any other trend we've seen in the last,

in the last like decade or two decades. Like there's just enormous focus on the investing side. And most recently me and another guy, David Rusenko, wrote this request for startup. a new, updated, very detailed list of, and I hope we can post it in the show notes, a very detailed list of ideas or areas where we think it might be worth looking

if you want to start a company. Now, we don't know what good ideas look like. Like, we don't know, but we can tell you like where all the areas of opportunity exists, where you should go and look for good ideas. And we wrote this in response to all these people that come to us and say, I want to work on climate tech, I don't have a good idea because I don't have any specific experience

in this stuff. And then we're just like, don't work on these three things, but go and work on any of these like 25, five directions. And it already has generated a good response. I think it'll generate more response. But I think it's important for YC to sort of like tell the world that we're looking to fund these things. And there's always been the reasons we had request for startups is to let people know that these are things that we actually want to fund. I actually moderated a panel a couple weeks ago that this organization called the climate draft put together of PMs that are in climate tech. And a lot of the questions were just like, what do I need to have?

What kind of background do I need to get to move into climate tech startup to start a climate tech company? And it's interesting, every single one again and again just said like, like your actual regular PM skills is all we need. Like there's a lot of people already at the company that are experts in the science. And like, that's okay if you have no experience. They just need the business experience, how to operate, how to execute, like standard stuff the PMs learn. And so would you agree with that?

That like you don't need to have this deep background in science and climate to move into the space. Yeah, I would say if you were working on a software company and even some of the hardware companies, that's probably generally true. Absolutely. And it's much more valuable to have that background than to have the specific domain expertise background. Like those are complementary, but as a PM having the solid PM background is the more valuable piece I would say. Being a competitive PM coming from a really good good culture of product management, knowing what good looks like.

That's invaluable to some of these companies because they haven't, in the past, they weren't able to hire these people. So that's, that's, I agree with that 100%. In terms of founders, I've seen everything, right? I've seen people having some domain expertise, starting a company and really succeeding. I've seen people who had no domain expertise and learned everything they need to know. Maybe they partnered up with someone who had a good domain expertise and then succeeded. I've seen all of it.

And I actually think that you can succeed in either of these categories. You don't need the deep expertise. It depends really on the area you're in. But someone like Pachama, like Diego and Thomas did not have expertise in forests besides a personal experience. He just had a willingness to solve the problem. And it really worked out for them. You mentioned you have this list of areas you're excited about.

I know we'll share it in the show notes. But is there any you want to highlight just like here's areas you're most excited about one of fund and or other companies you want to mention that are. are super interesting, super cool in the space that people should know about. We wrote the list and we're highlighting companies in each of the categories. I don't know if I want to highlight any specific categories, but I can talk about some of the things that we've found in the past that has real legs. So here's how I think generally think about climate tech.

So we have to decarbonize all the things we do that emits emissions. And that means we have to change a bunch of things in the world, change transportation, change energy, change homes, all of these things, or change how we heat and heat homes, for example. And then there's carbon removal. And carbon removal is sort of like, well, even if we do all of this stuff really well, it's probably not going to be enough.

And because there's an opportunity, and there's like some evidence that suggests that we can actually remove carbon from atmosphere in some way or another, a lot of companies are also working on this at the same time. I would say we need to do both, and they're not in conflict. And we probably are going to need to do.

do both. Well, we certainly have to do the first one. And on the decarbonization side, there's infinite number of categories of our society where we emit a lot of carbon, right? So I give you an example, shipping is a really big deal. Like a lot of carbon emissions come from freight ships around the world. That's not an, it's not obvious solution how you would solve that, because the kind of oil that they run on is really cheap and it's a very low margin business. and they don't have a whole lot of incentives to change besides what is coming down regulatory. So it's not a natural solution

with someone to be cool, someone will build like a Tesla for ships and then we just work out. But the two companies to be funny in that area, one of them is Seabound, who is building carbon capture removal for ships, and the other one is Fleet Zero, who build electrical ships.

And electrification is on and again and again and again and again. And whenever it's being applied, turn out to be a more efficient way of doing whatever thing that you were previous doing with the combustion industry. It is almost no maintenance. It's cheaper to build. The batteries are more expensive. It's cleaner and it fits like the carbon goals you have.

There's just a bunch of benefits there. But that has limitations. And usually the limitations on electrification has to do with batteries. It's like how far can you go? Another category is what I call the, which is a very important kind of critical one, which is the carbon accounting and sort of like the recommendation systems that help big company account for the carbon

that they have, and they are giving some recommendations of what you do. So I'll give you three examples. We funded Unravel Carbon, which is Carbon Accounting Software in Singapore, focusing on Asia, and probably the leading one there. This company called Carbon Chain, which is focused specifically on supply chain and shipping and raw materials, stuff like that out of the UK, and then there's Sinai here in the Bay Area. And who knows how this market is going to play out, but this market has, Carbon Accounting has customer demand right now.

So all the large companies of the world have either promised the government, promise their shareholders, or promise the public, or maybe even the employees, they go into decarbonize. And they don't always have an idea how to do it. And these software platforms is like the plug and play, this is how you do it. And then I'll give you two examples of things you can go into if you're not, if you don't have any specific domain expertise and just a good software engineer. There's a company called E-Node.

They are basically building plaid for EV chargers and plaid for home energy system. So if we imagine that the future of all homes or future of all charging of EVs is going to be a bunch of energy appliances that are run by small computers, right? They are. They're all Wi-Fi connected. You can connect to them and do things. Tell them to turn on, turn off, turn on when it's cheap,

turn off when it's whatever, right? Like all these different things that are valuable for the energy grid. Then you need a software platform to connect with all of them. That's what E-Note has been building. And now they're related companies called Static Static is the Airbnb for EV charging in India. And the reason that you need something like that is you don't have Tesla charging.

You don't really have public charging in general. And people don't have outlets in their garage and they don't have garages. So you need to build a new bottom-up EV charging system or platform. And that's what Static has been doing. And they're actually building now public charging infrastructure as well. But they have their own app. So if you use a static app, they'll direct you to all the static chargers. and I believe that they're the biggest or the fastest growing EV-charging network in India,

which is the second biggest country, not the biggest country in the world right now. So the potential of these ideas, even that they're doing well now, is just infinite. Like such an enormous market. And if you succeed in one of these things, I don't think we're going to have as many gas stations as we have today in different networks. We're not going to have the same in EV charging. It's going to be a lot more consolidated around the use experience of the. user and the app they open to do this stuff. So I'm pretty convinced that there's real big opportunities for software entrepreneurs to

figure this out. There's some companies in the current batch that are focused on this too. The following one I would mention is hard aerospace. We have hard aerospace and Wright Electric and a few others focus on aviation. And aviation is another big, difficult to kind of decarbonize. And Hart and Wright are focusing on battery electric planes. So they're basically like basic making commercial airplanes that fly on batteries and flying electric motors. And it's incredible to see.

What a killer list. We're definitely going to include links to all these companies in the show notes. Something I was thinking about is, so one narrative violation you mentioned is that there's actually money to be made in climate tech. It's not like impact oriented market anymore. And it might be worth chatting about like why that happened. but the question I want to get to is also things are going well. Like a lot of progress is being made. People see climate change and it's like we're dead.

It's game over. But it feels like battery prices are coming down, solar's coming down, wind power is ramping up. All these startups are investing. So it'd be fun to just hear like what's going well and maybe what is there to be optimistic about? But then also, okay, yeah, things are going well. But there's still things that are not going so great and where we need to double down. two specific things that went well in the last, say, 12 or 24 months. First one was politics.

So in the United States, we got the IRA, which is like, it's called the Inflation Reduction Act. It makes sense because shipped into green energy is going to actually reduce inflation because it reduces energy costs. But it's really a climate bill, right? It really is a bill that is focusing on on-shoring a lot of supply change for the green economy and incentivizing a lot of this change that we just talked about, whether there's carbon removal or home energy or home heating, whatever it might be.

This bill addresses all of it and is massive. So that's one really good news. And politics didn't have a lot of good news in the U.S. for a long time on this, maybe not never actually. The second good news, and it's such a good news that Europe is now trying to conquer, like they're now trying to counter the IRA with their bill, because they're seeing some of the battery companies saying, well, I actually going to build the next factory in the U.S.,

not Europe anymore. I changed my mind. So Europe now has to counter with their insuff. as well. The second good news is corporations are now customers. So maybe three or four years ago, you went to a Fortune 100 company and be like, hey, do you want to buy my XYC decarmonization solution? Like what is like the software platform or EVs or whatever it might be? They're like, well, talk to this person on this floor, right? And maybe they can help you. And this person was not really empowered to make decisions. That has changed. Now they're like, actually, we promised our shareholders to

reduce emissions by 2% every year. And we also promise the government, and we promise whatever, publicly to do that. So we got to do that. And I'm like, where do we start? What's the first 2% that we got to decarpenize? Maybe that starts with energy. Oh, we'll change our energy providers. But they are now showing up as customers, not just with LOIs, but paying actual for

contracts, right, doing investments in these companies, because they all see in the future. And they don't want to be behind. There's financial motivations for this. They want to get access to capital that has some strings attached. some of these things, but they don't want to fall behind, and they don't want to be the Toyota to Tesla, right? Toyota said, we're not going to do battery electric. They're still saying that sometimes.

And everybody else is like, Tesla is the one, we got a copy because that's the one that's winning. And all these corporations are really afraid of being the Toyota, right? They're really afraid of being the last one who's not changing, and then the world will move past them, and then they're going to die. So I think the motivation here is like intrinsically survival, and it's really about sort of adopting this,

because this is where the world is going. I think these are the two best news. And the thing that we, I think, you also wrote about this in the request for startups, this is not a thing where you can convince everybody to just like agree with you. And even if you did, people who wouldn't know what to do. So you have to view this as an economical opportunity

and say, we can't convince everybody that this is going to be the thing that's going to happen. It doesn't actually matter if it convince everybody. Like what matters is that sufficient amount of corporations are convinced that they change their habits. and then you can sell the things you're building to them. As startup founder, just focus on your customers and focus on B2B. That's what most people I recommend to do here,

because that's where most of the change is going to happen. And that's why I'm really optimistic about these startups and these founders. What they are doing is, in my opinion, more impactful than someone running a campaign trying to convince someone, some other people, that this is a big problem. Like, even when people know that climate change is a problem, they don't know exactly what to do about it. But the startup founders, they know. You touched on this, but it feels like one of the biggest shifts is, like, capitalism is kicked in and is now leaning into climate tech startups. And that's making a big dent.

Well, with that, we've reached the final part of our chat, which is the very exciting lightning round. I've got six questions for you. Are you ready? Yeah. What are two or three books that you recommend most to other people? The first one I recommend, I think I have it here. Yeah, this one. It's called A 100% Solution.

This book is written by Solomon Goldstein-Rose. It's for people who think climate change is a problem but don't know what to do about it. Or think that, or they're just kind of in despair or think they're like, oh, we're all going to die, right? And there are some books written where the outcome of the book is like, we're all going to die. But the truth is that we're not all going to die. and this book is trying to cover the 100% of all the solutions, like in detail, kind of like a much more detailed version of the Requestful Sharp that we wrote,

and it gets you freely optimistic. And I give that to anybody who's cared about climate change because it really lays out this from a very optimistic way of looking at the world. And that's why I recommend that book more than almost anything else. That's probably my number one book. Amazing. I love it just the one book. the book you got to read. I like that.

Yeah. That approach. What's a favorite recent movie or TV show that you've really enjoyed? Oh, I watch so much. I don't know. Like, I love Emily and Paris on Netflix. I think I just have TV serves a different purpose for me these days. It's just like, it's just entertainment. Yeah, you get that. But what else movie do I watch? We watch everything all at once. I thought that was a really good movie. that was really good.

Yeah, I think it might win best picture. We have a drinking game where people say White Lotus, we drink, and so you did not. So that's probably for the best. Favorite interview question that you like to ask YC founders when you're interviewing them.

What have you done since you applied to YC on your product? Like, what are specific things that you've accomplished since you applied? Because that usually is like a month or two months ago. That's awesome. Connect so much with what you had earlier.

And I hope the answer is like, here are all the things that we did. versus we just prepared for this interview. Exactly, exactly. Most out there wild startup you have funded. I think I would say like when I stepped onto the hangar floor of hard airspace, and I can send you a photo, and I literally am looking at an airplane as being made,

and I'm like, there's no SaaS company's office you can walk into and you just like open your mouth and you're like, what the hell is this? And there are a few of those companies. there are space companies or airspace companies or something like that, where there's just a different, like it's just a different feeling that you fund them

and like you can touch it. And I have a lot of appreciation for things like that now because they're much harder to do, but when you succeed, they're much more tangible. It can be like, I like had a tiny little piece in like this space rocket or this airplane that we funded

or the satellite that's above us. And I really think that that's, in some way, like a strong legacy compared to some other things that exist and just replace other other softers. It's always better businesses, but they are strong legacies. What's a pro tip for applying to YC? Pro tip.

Number one thing is go to YouTube and type in like, I think there's a video that we recorded, which is about how you succeed with your application with you. It's like an hour-long video that gives you all the pro tips on how to do it like we told people in advance. Once you've watched that video, then see if you know anybody, who've done YC and then reach out to them and ask them,

maybe ask them why C is right for you, but I also ask them like, what's important for you to, as you're kind of approaching applying to YC, writing the application, during the interview, like, what were the things that matter? Those are probably the two things I would do.

Final question. What's one pro tip for visiting Sweden? First of all, you should visit in the summer. It's a really good time to be there. It's a very different country in the winter. And try to go outside of the cities into the nature. And then like prepare yourself for Swedes, not all being like Americans. They're a little, they're a little bit more colder and have a little bit more distance to you.

And they don't randomly talk to you like I've learned to do here in America. And I think you just have to go along with like a little bit different of a vibe than you have here in the U.S. And most people actually love it. Like most people who go to Sweden, they love it, but most of them go in the summer. This reminds me. I wanted to close it, but there's a tweet once about how in Sweden when you go to someone's house, they don't feed you. It's like not expected that you will have food. You have to kind of bring your own food. Is that true? And what's that about? Absolutely true. I actually gave an unconference talk about this topic. And the conference talk was all of the strange things that Swedish people do and why. And if it would summarize it, like, yes, we do that. I actually experienced that. I went to a friend's house and they had dinner. And I waited in my friend's room while they had dinner. And that was just

normal and why that happened. I think there's a strong sense of individual responsibility in Sweden which kind of like reaches over to unfriendliness or Sidune from an American or foreign lens because this is so crazy. But in Sweden it's just like, well, you take care of your kids, I'll take care of my kids. And it's not really a question. And I think that a lot of the motivations of why Swedes are strange. One of them is we don't want to be indebted. to someone else, right? So we never want to feel like, which is why, like, you wouldn't,

for example, if you go to a bar in Sweden, like, you don't buy a round, you buy your own beer. Because, like, maybe you have to, like, figure out the money at the end of the day, things like that. And I think it's just, it's actually quite individualistic society,

but it's individualistic with heart, I would say. There's a warmth to it, but it will definitely be appeared strange to people who don't really understand this. They think people are cold and, like, They're just like, they don't understand that there's actually a heart behind this stuff. That sounds really smart, to be honest, the system I would be into it, but I can see how people are very confused. Gustav, I can't thank you enough for doing this.

This was incredible. I know that people listening to this are going to leave informed, inspired, motivated, hopefully motivated to move faster and make more progress. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to learn more or ask you maybe follow-up questions? and how can listeners be useful to you? I tweet sometimes on Twitter.com slash Gustav. The most useful things that I put out is probably on the YC's YouTube channel.

So I've recorded a couple of videos on growth, on sales, on how I talk to customers. I actually send them to people all day long because it's like the startup school videos that we made are like a lot of preparation went into it and it answers most of the questions that people have. So watch those first, I would say. But yeah, sometimes I tweet other stuff that people can follow this fine.

How can people be useful to me? I love hearing feedback from founders. What they're working on, I want to hear kind of questions they have about their companies. But I want to also really emphasize that to apply to IC, you don't need to know any of us. You don't need to reach out to us. It doesn't make any specific difference. The principles of YC is that you should be able to become an insight in Silicon Valley without knowing anybody. And that's kind of what the application process is about.

So feel free to reach out for us if you have questions, but don't feel like that's required to be a good YC applicants. It's actually the opposite, and that we read and treat all the applications equally. And thank you so much for listening to this podcast. I mean, it made me happy you made all the way to the end. Yeah, extra credit for listening to the end. I also just want to say while you're saying that,

it feels like YC is such a good force for the world, just does just enable so much innovation. and progress. And if technology is what drives the world forward, I see so at the center of a lot of that. So just huge props to what YC is doing and what you're doing, Gustav. We feel a lot of responsibility towards that. That's for sure. All right. I'll let you go. Again, Gustav, thank you for doing this. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review, as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at Lenny'spodcast.com. See you in the next episode.