YC's 7% is the difference between founders vs VCs having control after two rounds assuming good growth. The issue is that the best startups like early stage MS Amazon Google Facebook don't need help attracting access and information. The 90% failed startups get the merit badge which will help you in your future career as a non-founder. And then there's good startups like Roam, which YC is not smart enough to detect. What's left is controversials like Airbnb, which never exists without YC. Are you Airbnb? And is YC smart enough to see that?
I would group this together with two other statements I heard that seem logical on the surface but ignore the reality of the market:
"Why raise a seed round of more than $1.3M? If I can't build a business with 1.3M, then it's not a business worth building!"
"What's the problem with [name of a top tier VC fund] being in my seed round? If they actually choose not to do our A round, then it's not a good business to start with!"
The problem with all these statements is that you're looking at this from an overly idealized perspective where things always happen for a reason and there are no oh-shit moments. But the real world is messy and sometimes not rational. Perhaps your VC won't take your A simply because they already did two As that same year, and they are stretched beyond their limits. And perhaps your bigger competitor will sue you and suddenly your $1.3M will no longer be enough (at that point it's too late to raise again).
So going back to your original statement "best startups don't need help attracting access and information" - so you're saying best startups always go from bootstrapped to a high valuation A without any seed checks in between? I mean, even Google took a bunch of seed checks, and it doesn't get more disruptive than two Stanford PhDs building a better search engine with patented IP. By the time all those seed checks, lower-than-otherwise valuation, and various not-super-clean deal terms (was Eric Schmidt really necessary and how much did he cost in cash and equity?) are factored in, the YC route turns out to be net positive even for the best startups with first-time founders. The only exception might be a serial founder with a prior exit and strong VC connections, eg Max Levchin.
YC's 7% is the difference between founders vs VCs having control after two rounds assuming good growth. The issue is that the best startups like early stage MS Amazon Google Facebook don't need help attracting access and information. The 90% failed startups get the merit badge which will help you in your future career as a non-founder. And then there's good startups like Roam, which YC is not smart enough to detect. What's left is controversials like Airbnb, which never exists without YC. Are you Airbnb? And is YC smart enough to see that?