I would argue that Antler is not a great comparison due to:
- predatory term sheets offered to startup founders
- lack of genuine credible mentors / past startup operators in its team
- lack of support during and post-program
- different business model (focus on management fees instead of carry in its various jurisdictions)
Iterative is probably a better comparison.
All that said, SEA definitely has an issue when it comes to scaling globally. Some of the recent NASDAQ IPOs of SEA companies (beyond the oft-cited Grab & Sea Group) have been shambolic
You hear good and bad from all programmes in this region, for sure. But I agree that without a north star, in this case exits, it makes it tough for any stage of the ecosystem to accelerate.
Whats’s the answer? More local exit opportunities?
I see exits as a long-term / second-order effect, not necessarily an objective of any program.
Everything around YC is scaffolding for them to accelerate and take off. As quoted on YC's own About page:
"The overall goal of YC is to help startups really take off...But whatever stage a startup is at when they arrive, our goal is to help them to be in dramatically better shape 3 months later.
For most startups, better shape translates into two things: to have a better product with more users, and to have more options for raising money."
------
For the SEA version, I would localise and focus it on 3 key components founders would need to truly succeed:
- Customers (B2B // B2C; mid-market / SME less relevant in this market)
- Investors (Connections with smart money from abroad + early-stage VCs and family offices in the region)
If all goes well, exits might then come in the form of acquisitions // going public. If a founder doesn't want to play the fund-raising game; it should be perfectly acceptable to keep building and growing while taking home dividends
“YC startups in Indonesia raised significantly more than their peers. This could be YC picking great companies, great founders applying to the programme or simply the YC brand making startups more attractive to other investors”
— except for a couple of 2nd wave bets, YC startups have generally struggled in Indonesia though. Sky-high valuation with a limited TAM / purchasing power in addition to what you’ve mentioned did not help most of these startups.
I would argue that Antler is not a great comparison due to:
- predatory term sheets offered to startup founders
- lack of genuine credible mentors / past startup operators in its team
- lack of support during and post-program
- different business model (focus on management fees instead of carry in its various jurisdictions)
Iterative is probably a better comparison.
All that said, SEA definitely has an issue when it comes to scaling globally. Some of the recent NASDAQ IPOs of SEA companies (beyond the oft-cited Grab & Sea Group) have been shambolic
You hear good and bad from all programmes in this region, for sure. But I agree that without a north star, in this case exits, it makes it tough for any stage of the ecosystem to accelerate.
Whats’s the answer? More local exit opportunities?
I see exits as a long-term / second-order effect, not necessarily an objective of any program.
Everything around YC is scaffolding for them to accelerate and take off. As quoted on YC's own About page:
"The overall goal of YC is to help startups really take off...But whatever stage a startup is at when they arrive, our goal is to help them to be in dramatically better shape 3 months later.
For most startups, better shape translates into two things: to have a better product with more users, and to have more options for raising money."
------
For the SEA version, I would localise and focus it on 3 key components founders would need to truly succeed:
- Customers (B2B // B2C; mid-market / SME less relevant in this market)
- Investors (Connections with smart money from abroad + early-stage VCs and family offices in the region)
- Talent (Multilingual + energetic + "startup-tested" operators)
If all goes well, exits might then come in the form of acquisitions // going public. If a founder doesn't want to play the fund-raising game; it should be perfectly acceptable to keep building and growing while taking home dividends
“YC startups in Indonesia raised significantly more than their peers. This could be YC picking great companies, great founders applying to the programme or simply the YC brand making startups more attractive to other investors”
— except for a couple of 2nd wave bets, YC startups have generally struggled in Indonesia though. Sky-high valuation with a limited TAM / purchasing power in addition to what you’ve mentioned did not help most of these startups.
So why are India/Thailand/China VC's not flocking to create their own YC in the region?
Super early-stage is a whole different skill to regular VC. But there are programmes such as Antler, Surge, Interative, Accelerating Asia and others.