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
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
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.