When VCs are busy chasing Consensus, how can we regain the "Puritan" style of innovation belief?

Original Title: “Build What’s Fundable”

Original author: Kyle Harrison

Compiled by: Jiahua, ChainCatcher

In 2014, I had just sold my first company. The money wasn't much, but at the time it felt like all the wealth I had needed for a long time. After that, I felt pulled in several different directions. I had previously written about one of the paths, as well as the self-exploration that led me to venture capital. But at that time, there was another pull that made me want to create something else.

I don't want to start a business just for the sake of entrepreneurship; I hope it can have more meaning, to find a problem worth solving. While searching for meaningful problems, I stumbled upon the RFS list from Y Combinator (YC), which is the “Request for Startups.”

I remember being deeply inspired. It felt like a series of ambitious, problem-oriented questions waiting to be answered. For example, opportunities to find cheaper new energy than ever before; exploring robots from space to the human body; and Norman Borlaug-style food innovations. It was this captivating vision that led me to start my second company: dedicated to promoting solar energy in Africa.

Before we start this article, there's an important reminder: I have never applied to YC. I have never attended a YC demo day. I only watched it once when it was streamed online during the pandemic. I have invested in a few companies that have participated in YC. I have only visited their office in Mountain View once. For most of my career, I have been neither a staunch supporter nor a critic of YC. They are just a small part of this vast and beautiful world we call the “tech circle.”

But it wasn't until earlier this year that I saw this tweet, which made me start thinking: 11 years have passed, how is that startup proposal solicitation list performing now?

So I conducted an investigation. My findings made me extremely sad. Dempsey was right, at least reflected in the shift of focus from the RFS list - it moved from “problem-prioritized” questions to “consensus-driven” ideas. Video generation, multi-agent infrastructure, AI native enterprise SaaS, replacing government consultants with LLMs, forward-deployed agent modules, etc. It's like taking a million tweets from venture capital Twitter to generate a word cloud.

Looking back to 2014, I remember being deeply impressed by YC's entry about “one million job opportunities”: since then, I have often thought about how, in the U.S., it really is only Walmart (and later Amazon) that has employed one million people. This is incredibly difficult to achieve! In a world where job opportunities are increasingly disappearing, this prompt aims to explore what kind of business models can employ a hundred thousand people. This is very thought-provoking!

So, what about the version in the autumn of 2025? It is “the first company with a scale of 10 people and a value of 100 billion dollars.”

At first glance, this may feel similar. But it is completely the opposite (for example: because of AI, hire as few people as possible!) and basically it is speaking the “unspeakable secret” out loud.

“What problem are you trying to solve? Who cares! But many VCs are talking about how crazy these 'revenue per employee' numbers are getting, so… you know… just go ahead and do that!”

This is Dempsey's commentary. YC is becoming “the best window to glimpse the current mainstream consensus.”

In fact, you can almost feel this startup solicitation list morphing in real-time around “mainstream consensus.” It was this disappointment with such an aspirational product that led me into a mental “rabbit hole.” I reflected on my understanding of the original purpose of YC and why it was so valuable in its early years. At that time, the tech world was an opaque field, and YC represented the best entry point into this realm.

But then, I realized that the goal had changed. As the guidance of the technology industry became increasingly strong, YC became less focused on making the world easy to understand, and instead turned to catering to consensus. “Give the ecosystem what they want, they are just playing the game under the existing rules.” They are serving the demands of a larger “consensus capital machine”—startups that have a specific appearance and shine.

However, the toxin of “chasing consensus” has spread from capital to cultural shaping. The prevalence of “normativity” has infected various aspects of our lives. With the disappearance of reverse thinking, independent critical thinking has given way to a cultural adherence akin to party-line ideology.

We can diagnose some issues arising from the evolution of YC. We can describe it as a symptom of a broader “normative consensus engine” that spans capital and culture.

But in the end, there is only one question. How do we solve it?

How can we break the shackles of compliance and reignite the flames of personal struggle and independent thinking? Unfortunately, neither the “consensus capital machine” nor the “normative accelerator” (referring to YC) can be expected to help us.

From entry channels to manufacturing factories

When you look back at YC in the summer of 2005, you can see in the eyes of Paul Graham (the founder of YC, on the far right in the picture) a desire to mentor newcomers and an optimistic hopefulness. The original vision of YC was to serve as an “entry channel” for a startup ecosystem that was extremely difficult to access at the time.

In 2005, SaaS was still in its infancy. Mobile devices did not exist yet. Entrepreneurship was far from a common career path. Technology was still that emerging new aristocrat, rather than the dominant force in the world.

When Y Combinator was just starting, it had a clear opportunity to help unveil the mystery of starting a startup. The phrase “Build something people want” might be mocked today as obvious, but in the early 2000s, the default business logic was more about feasibility studies and market analysts than “talking to customers.” We take for granted many of the truths that YC helped popularize, which unveiled the mystery of the entrepreneurial journey for future entrepreneurs.

I have no doubt that YC was absolutely more beneficial than harmful to the world at least in the first ten years. But I don't know when the rules of the game changed. Startups are no longer so opaque; they have become easier to understand. YC can no longer just unveil the veil; it must “mass produce.” The scale surged from just 10-20 companies in the initial years to over 100 in 2015, ultimately peaking at 300-400 companies per batch in 2021 and 2022. Although this number has declined, there are still about 150 companies per batch now.

I believe that the evolution of YC has occurred alongside the changes in the “understandability” of the technology industry. The easier the technology industry is to understand, the lower the value that YC can provide based on its original operating model. Therefore, YC has adapted to this game. If technology is an increasingly clear path, then YC's mission is to get as many people as possible to walk this path.

converging in “overly clear”

Packy McCormick (founder and lead writer of Not Boring) introduced a term that I now use frequently because it effectively describes the world around us: “hyperlegible.”

This concept suggests that because we can obtain information through various content and understand the nuances of culture through social media, the world around us has largely become extremely clear: almost to a bothersome extent.

The technology industry is also so “overly clear” that the show “Silicon Valley,” produced from 2014 to 2019, still accurately depicts the cultural characteristics of a large group of people.

In a world where the tech industry is so “overly clear,” YC's initial mission to “reduce the opacity of the industry” has been forced to evolve. In the past, startups were the preferred tools of rebels breaking norms; today, they are increasingly becoming a “consensus norm funnel.”

I am not an anthropologist of the tech industry, but my interpretation of the situation is that this is not a deliberate decline on YC's part. This is simply the path of least resistance. Startups are becoming more and more common and better understood. For YC, a simple north star (fundamental goal) is: “If we can help more and more companies secure funding, we have succeeded!”

And today, those who can obtain financing often look very similar to those who obtained financing yesterday. Thus, you begin to see this “normativity” among YC founders and teams.

A few days ago, I saw an analysis of statistics about the YC team:

1. Youthfulness: The average age of YC founders has decreased from 29-30 years old to around 25 years old now.

2. Elite Education: The proportion of founders who graduated from the top 20 schools has increased from about 46% in 2015 to 55% now.

3. Returning YC Founders: The number of founders with YC experience has increased from about 7-9% to around 20%.

4. Focus on the San Francisco Bay Area: The proportion of YC founders headquartered in the Bay Area is even higher than pre-pandemic levels, now reaching 83%.

Reflecting on these dynamics, they are merely a part of a larger narrative. YC has evolved from a “gateway” in an opaque category like technology into more of a “consensus-shaping machine.”

It is not just the founders who are being shaped by consensus. You can almost see the entire YC team shaping around “mainstream consensus”. As trends like voice assistants touch everyone's consensus, you can see its reflection in the YC team.

Ironically, Paul Graham described this consensus as a logical reflection of technological reality. I am sure this is true. But I think what is different is that the consensus characteristic of “what can attract investment” has become the ultimate goal of the entire operation, which has marginalized those things that might have been more contrarian and unconventional in the past.

At the beginning of 2025, YC celebrated its 20th anniversary. During that celebration, it described its achievements as “creating $800 billion in startup market value.” Note that it is “created,” not “helped” create billions in value. They see it as something they “created.” Something they “manufactured.” I believe YC's ultimate goal has shifted from “helping people understand how to build companies” to “maximizing the number of companies through this funnel.” Although they feel similar, these two are not the same.

The most important insight here is that I don't think it's YC's fault. Rather than blaming an entire industry for the sins of one participant, I would prefer to say that they are merely following the rational economic incentives shaped by a larger force: the “consensus capital machine.”

You must look “worth investing”

A few weeks ago, Roelof Botha (head of Sequoia Capital) stated in an interview that venture capital is not really considered an asset class:

“If you look at the data, over the past 20-30 years, on average only 20 companies have ultimately reached a valuation of 1 billion dollars or more at the time of exit each year. Only 20. Despite more capital flowing into the venture capital space, we haven't seen a significant change in the number of those big outcome companies.”

Venture capital funding in 2024 is $215 billion, up from $48 billion in 2014. Despite investing 5 times the capital, we haven't seen 5 times the results. But we are desperately trying to get more companies through that funnel. And in the venture capital engine, every loud and clear voice feeding startups into the machine revolves around this idea: desperately trying to get more companies through a funnel that can no longer expand.

YC has become an accomplice in the process of “pursuing scalable models in this unscalable asset class.” a16z is similar. These engines that thrive on more capital, more companies, more hype, and more attention are exacerbating the problem. In the pursuit of the unscalable, they attempt to establish scale where it should not be scaled. In business building, the largest and most important outcomes cannot be meticulously planned. And in the attempt to establish formulaic scaling for companies, the “rough edges” of important ideas are being smoothed out.

Just as YC's “Startup Proposal Solicitation” shifted from a “problem-driven” idea to a concept of “seeking consensus,” the formula for establishing startups reinforces a demand: you must appear to be “worth investing in,” rather than creating something “truly important.” Moreover, this is increasingly true not only in the way companies are built but also in the way culture is shaped.

The normative trend from capital to culture

Peter Thiel is highly praised for his multiple correct judgments. However, interestingly, the point that Thiel is most talked about (such as “being a contrarian/inverse investor”) is also something where he has once again significantly outpaced everyone else, and which was once ridiculed as “trite and obvious.” As a result, it has now become increasingly rare, almost on the verge of extinction.

The continuous pursuit of consensus has poisoned every aspect of the company established and increasingly poisoned the way culture is built.

Venture capital, as a profession, also has the same “normative” characteristics. Starting a startup, participating in YC, raising venture capital, and building a “unicorn” have become the new era version of “going to a good school, finding a good job, and buying a house in the suburbs.” This is a normative culture; it is that time-tested stable path. Social media and short videos only exacerbate this “programmable normativity,” as we see these “overly clear life paths.”

The most dangerous aspect of this path is that it undermines the need for the masses to engage in critical thinking, as the thinking has already been done for them.

When I think about the true value of something, I often reflect on Buffett's famous quote about the market. In the short term, it is a voting machine; in the long term, it is a weighing machine. However, a system that is increasingly forming a consensus, or even “manufacturing” consensus, has the problem that it becomes increasingly difficult to “weigh” the value of anything. The formation of that kind of consensus “invented” the value of specific assets, contexts, and experiences.

The same is true in the field of technology. This “normative mindset” built around consensus-driven ideas is permeating the lives of millions and will have a negative impact on them, not only because they will create worse things but also because they will be unable to develop independent thinking skills.

There are always some people who know. They know that following the conventional path does not yield the best results.

Be a “Puritan” style founder

When reflecting on this cycle, to be honest, the only answer I can think of is that we are facing a massive economic shock.

When you observe those successful reverse cases, you will find that many of them were established by existing billionaires: Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir (CIA data supplier), Anduril (military drone company). I believe the insight gained from this is not “first become a billionaire, and then you can think independently.” On the contrary, it prompts us to reflect on what “other characteristics” often lead to those outcomes.

In my opinion, another commonality among these companies is that they are led by “Ideological Purists,” those who believe in a mission and dare to challenge consensus and authority.

Last week I wrote about “founder ideologies,” and there are different types of founders: missionaries, mercenaries, bards, etc. Among all these types, one of the most important categories is the “missionary.” The best founders often come from this type.

The key insight here is that for a “normative culture” increasingly built around “consensus formation,” the only antidote is to incentivize the participants of that culture to pursue the purity of ideology: to “believe” in something!

The slogan of YC has always been “to build products that people want,” which is a very reasonable suggestion. However, more importantly, it is “to build things worth building.”

embark on the right path

The first element of becoming a puritan in thought is something I have written about repeatedly: embarking on the right path.

Last week, YC announced one of its latest investments: Chad IDE, a project that “erodes the brain.”

This product can integrate your social media, dating apps, or gambling apps, so while you wait for the prompt to load the code, you can do other things. It's nothing, of course. Everyone knows we switch contexts between tasks, bouncing back and forth between mindless leisure and work.

But that “flavor” felt off, and the whole world noticed. A reaction to Chad IDE precisely captured the “atmospheric shift” that was happening:

Ulysses co-founder Will O’Brien commented, “Venture capital funds that choose to support 'startups on the assembly line' like this one, as well as other startups with ethical issues, should know that mission-driven founders will take note of this and seriously undervalue the company's reputation.”

The startups on the assembly line are deeply colored by nihilism. The founders and investors supporting them are no different from saying: nothing matters. We should try to make money, even if it means producing complete trash or encouraging evil. This infuriates mission-driven founders and creates a profound sense of aversion that is hard to overcome when we consider potential partners.

The concept of “startups on the assembly line” is a natural extension of pursuing scalable models in an asset class that cannot be scaled.

It's not just YC that feels this change in atmosphere.

Be your own purpose, not a tool for tools.

Technology itself is not a benevolent force. Technology, like any amorphous concept and collection of lifeless objects, is a tool.

It is those who “wield” technology that determine whether it produces good results or bad results.

Incentives are the forces that drive people toward specific paths (whether good or bad). However, beliefs, if unwavering, can transcend incentives in the pursuit of more important things.

My temptations may encourage me to lie, cheat, and steal, as these can make me wealthy financially. But my beliefs prevent me from being a slave to those temptations. They inspire me to live at a higher level.

YC was originally conceived as an “entry channel” to help people better understand how to build technology. What they choose to do with this capability depends on them. However, during this process, the incentives shifted, and the ugly face of scaling began to show. As technology became a more navigable path, YC's goal shifted from “illuminating this path” to “getting as many people as possible to walk down this path.”

From YC to giant venture capital firms, the pursuit of scale has turned a vast number of participants in the tech field into slaves of incentives. The fear of failure has further exacerbated this enslavement. We allow incentives to shape us out of fear. Fear of poverty, fear of being foolish, or simply fear of being left behind. Fear of Missing Out (FOMO).

That kind of fear leads us down the path of “normativity.” We are assimilated. We seek convergence. We grind away the rough edges of our individuality until we are smoothed out to fit that “path of least resistance.” But the path of least resistance leaves no room for “counter-beliefs.” In fact, it leaves no room for “any beliefs” because it fears that your beliefs will take you down a path of consensus that it is unwilling to tread.

But there are better ways. In a world seeking a normative system, anchor yourself in beliefs. Find things worth believing in. Even if they are difficult. Even if they are unpopular. Find beliefs worth sacrificing for. Or better yet, find beliefs worth living for.

Technology is a tool. Venture capital is a tool. YC is a tool. a16z is a tool. Attention is a tool. Anger is a tool. The good news is that there are tools everywhere. But only you can be the craftsman.

A hammer seeks nails. A saw seeks wood. But when you “believe” that something is possible, it allows you to transcend the raw materials and see the potential. See the angel in the marble and keep chipping away until you set him free.

We must never become the tools of our tools. In this world of “normativity” seeking consensus, filled with incentives that want to make you their slave. And if you have no particular “belief”, then they are likely to succeed.

But for those who understand the principles, there will always be a better way.