Two entrepreneurs, Chris Saad and Yaniv Bernstein, analyzed Paul Graham's 13 startup principles one by one through a dialogue format, combining their entrepreneurial experiences with the current startup environment.

YC founder Paul Graham's "Startups in 13 Sentences" is well-known and is essentially a must-read for entrepreneurs.

"The success or failure of a startup almost entirely depends on the founding team."

"It is only after launching the product that you truly begin to work. Launching the product allows you to understand what you should be doing. Before that, you are just wasting time."

"Understanding the user is key. The essence of entrepreneurship is 'creating value': the dimension of value you can control the most is the degree to which the product improves the user's life. The hardest part is knowing what to do for the user. Once the direction is clear, making the product is simply a matter of effort, and most good developers can do that."

Although published in 2009, its core ideas remain relevant today and are something founders can revisit every year.

"A successful startup is essentially an exploration that goes against intuition."

01 Choose the Right Co-founder: Early Investment is in the Founders

Yaniv: Paul Graham wrote, "The importance of co-founders to a startup is comparable to the impact of location on real estate; any attribute of a house can be changed, but the location cannot; the idea of a startup can be easily adjusted, but changing co-founders is extremely difficult. The success or failure of a startup almost entirely depends on the founding team."

In Australia, it is indeed possible to "move a house" by transporting it with a truck, but the process is really messy, and no one wants to reach that point. Let's discuss the meaning of this principle.

Chris: I just spoke with an investor about this topic. I believe that the essence of early investment is investing in the founders. If you are going to start a business, the first and most important decision is who to choose as your co-founder.

There is a saying in the film industry: "Half of a director's job is casting." The same goes for startups; managing a startup is fundamentally about selecting the right team members. "People are the most important asset" may sound cliché, but it is absolutely true, especially in the startup field: the impact of entrepreneurship is magnified, and the process is full of challenges. Whether it’s emotional pressure, tactical problems, or strategic choices, you need truly excellent partners: aligned goals, strong resilience, focus, and commitment. The success or failure of a startup in its early (or even later) stages often depends on who your "comrades" are.

Yaniv: Absolutely. There is a consensus that "investors invest in the founding team," and for founders, the corresponding "investment" is finding the right co-founder. But from my own experience, I’ve found that founders are not isolated individuals; you can't just say, "Founder A is excellent, and Founder B is also excellent, so this is a good team."

A team is a "non-linear system": a good team’s value is far greater than the sum of its individual members, while a poor team is the opposite. So when choosing a co-founder, consider "relative compatibility": are the skills complementary? Are the core goals aligned? Can you share those indivisible resources, such as decision-making power and profits? More importantly, can your relationship last? Can you work together under pressure?

There will always be tough times in entrepreneurship; when the situation becomes difficult, will your co-founder stand by you? Can your relationship withstand it, or will it completely break apart? Data can also prove that founder breakups are a common reason for startup failure. Anyone who has been in the startup circle knows that these breakups are too common; most startups will lose a founder midway.

If you can build a resilient, cohesive team with complementary skills, where each individual is outstanding on their own but even better together, then you have a significant advantage. For me, this is the true meaning of "choosing the right co-founder."

Chris: I believe that most startup failures ultimately stem from founder issues. Paul said, "Ideas are easy to change, but changing founders is hard," and that is absolutely true.

02 Launch Quickly: Before Launching the Product, You Are Wasting Time

Yaniv: Paul Graham wrote, "The essence of launching quickly is not to get the product to market as soon as possible, but rather that 'only after launching the product do you truly begin to work.' Launching the product allows you to understand 'what you should be doing'; before that, you are just wasting time. Therefore, regardless of what the product is, the core value lies in allowing you to reach users."

Chris: We have discussed "Minimum Viable Product (MVP)" and "Minimum Viable Iteration" many times before; the core is "launch-learn-iterate." There is a famous saying: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth (face the reality)." I often say, "Before the product interacts with real users, all efforts are just theoretical."

What Paul wants to express is that launching quickly is not just about creating value early or gaining a first-mover advantage; it is more important to understand how users interact with your product. Do they care? Does it create real value? If not, why? How should it be adjusted? What have you learned? The faster you launch the product and iterate, the faster you grow.

Yaniv: Chris, I am currently raising "pre-seed funding" and had some tough conversations with investors before recording this podcast. They always ask, "I still can't figure out what your product is," or "You need to show me the roadmap." This is unreasonable because the truth in early funding is, "I am not even sure what the final product will be." I need to release a version first, see the market response, and then continue to iterate.

Investors should be asking, "How will you get to market quickly? How will you iterate quickly?" Fortunately, several excellent investors have joined our "Violet Project," and they only ask one question: "How do you plan to go to market quickly?"

These investors understand the logic of Silicon Valley-style entrepreneurship, and Paul always articulates this well; it’s no coincidence that he is called the "Godfather of Silicon Valley Entrepreneurship." The core principle of Silicon Valley is to let go of the "false sense of precision" and "desire for control." Don’t think that "as long as you think it through, do enough research, and build enough models in Excel, you can control everything."

You have to "bow to reality": the ocean is stronger than you; you must go with the flow. Jump into the water and see where the current takes you, rather than pretending you can control everything. There is really deep wisdom in this.

Chris: Many people come from academia, agencies (used to "delivering big results at once"), or large companies with "waterfall development" (where you are required to "get it right the first time," or you might get fired), and some have just graduated (where writing a thesis is a one-time submission that must be perfect). They are used to "one-time efforts," but entrepreneurship requires a cycle of "launch-learn-iterate-repeat."

03 Let Ideas Evolve: Strong Opinions, Loosely Held

Yaniv: Paul’s third principle is to let ideas evolve. This is the latter half of "launch quickly": launch quickly, and iterate continuously. Treating entrepreneurship as "simply executing a brilliant initial idea" is a big mistake. Just like writing an article, brilliant ideas often emerge gradually during the writing process; good ideas in entrepreneurship also often arise during execution.

Chris: We mentioned this in the previous point, but I want to add a popular and important perspective: "Fall in love with the problem, not the solution."

Many people think, "I want to help people get from point A to point B; my imagined solution is a Ferrari, so I must build a Ferrari, which will surely be great." But most of the time, what people need might be a Toyota Corolla or even a small electric scooter; what is specifically needed (like an airplane, a jet, or a propeller plane) depends on "which specific problem you want to solve between A and B."

So you should be obsessed with "solving the problem of getting from A to B," but remain flexible about "how to deliver the solution." As the product matures, market maturity, budget, and availability of funds change, the solution should also iterate accordingly. The basis for iteration includes the "user feedback" mentioned in the previous point, as well as the passage of time, market dynamics, and changes in your own roadmap.

Yaniv: I am reminded of another saying (not from this article, but very relevant): "Strong opinions, loosely held."

At any time, you should have a clear and strong opinion about "what you are doing." Honestly, I feel this every day: if you don’t believe you are doing the "right thing" based on your current understanding, it is easy to get distracted and ultimately accomplish nothing or fail to launch anything.

But once the product interacts with the market, you must listen to the market. The market will likely tell you, "Your idea is wrong." So your attitude must be flexible: don’t stubbornly say, "I heard the market's voice, but you don’t understand; I have a three-year roadmap, and I’ve told all the investors, so I will stick to the plan."

That would be foolish; you need to be able to adjust your ideas, maintain "elasticity," and let your ideas evolve based on market feedback. Moreover, Paul used the term "evolve," not "revolution," which means that when a product idea is proven to be unworkable, you don’t have to start from scratch; instead, you "update your existing understanding": "Because of new information, my idea was wrong, and now I need to adjust."

I think this is crucial; many people misunderstand "pivot" and "lean startup," thinking it means "start over every time," but in fact, it is "iterative optimization." Essentially, this is still about "learning": only by getting the product into the market and listening to the market can you learn.

04 Understand the User: Solve User Problems First, Then Talk About Growth

Chris: The fourth principle is "understand the user." Paul wrote, "You can imagine the value created by a startup as a rectangle—one side is the number of users, and the other side is 'the degree to which the product improves the user's life.' The latter is the dimension you can control the most, while the growth of the former depends precisely on your performance in the latter."

"Just like in scientific research, the hard part is not answering questions but asking them; the challenge is discovering unmet new needs of users. The deeper your understanding of users, the greater the probability of achieving this. This is also why many successful startups initially create 'products that the founders themselves need.'"

Yaniv: Paul uses the "rectangle" metaphor, but it can be simplified: don’t just focus on "growth" and "user numbers"; focus on "creating products that users truly love." The only way to achieve this is to truly understand the users; you cannot accidentally create a product that users love; it requires nuanced insights into the users.

The path to "user number growth" is "creating products that users love." This aligns perfectly with Paul’s style, with the core being "delivering immense value." To achieve this, you must listen to users, understand users, empathize with users, identify "the specific forms of user pain points," and then design the perfect solution.

By doing this, growth will naturally come. If you focus on growth first, rather than "delivering value" and "understanding users," it's like "drinking sugary water for a boost"; growth may not be difficult, but it is hard to sustain and cannot truly capture value because you haven't delivered much value. Therefore, the primary task is to understand users and deliver immense value to them.

Chris: I resonate deeply with this. When I was consulting, I encountered many founders who were solely focused on "growth." You say "growth is easy," but "understanding the core needs of users" is not easy. If the product cannot solve user problems, what is the point of "growth"? It's like "wanting to run before learning to walk, or even wanting to run without having legs"; it simply doesn't make sense.

What you want to grow is a "product with practical value." If you don't understand users, you won't understand their pain points; without understanding pain points, you can't create valuable products; without value, there can be no growth. You can throw money at advertising to attract users, but they might just browse for half a second and leave. That's not growth; it's just "temporary ineffective traffic."

You must first understand users, solve their pain points, and create valuable products before discussing growth, and finally monetization. I've seen too many founders say, "Chris, we want to launch a subscription service." I would ask, "That's great! What value can you create for users each month?" They would respond, "What does creating value each month mean? We think users might register for a forum or something…" Stop that! First, understand users and solve their problems; everything else will follow naturally.

Yaniv: But Chris, we need to understand "why it's so hard to resist focusing solely on growth," because the metrics related to growth are more appealing and easier to articulate. For example, if you say, "Last month, the number of users grew by 20% compared to the previous two months," even if it's through "artificial means" like advertising, you can tell a clear story to investors and to yourself.

But if you say, "Our product is 20% more useful than last month, but we still only have 5 users," it sounds like "still just dabbling." This brings us back to the initial question: why is entrepreneurship so attractive? Why have we continued to produce over 250 episodes of the podcast? Why is Paul so charismatic?

Because many of the highlights of entrepreneurship go against intuition; they not only contradict your instincts but also established norms, and often go against human nature. This principle is typical: you want to "grow the company and make a big impact," but the reality is "first learn to walk, then learn to run." Here, "walking" means "delivering immense value to a small group of users."

Chris: The logic of entrepreneurship is also contrary to all other business models (large corporations, agencies, small companies), and these "non-entrepreneurial models" have long permeated our lives: you see your parents running a small business, you learn "value creation models of the industrial age" in school (writing papers, completing assignments), and you become familiar with bureaucratic systems while working in large corporations… Very few people have truly experienced "the flexible organism that is entrepreneurship."

So whether from a human nature perspective or from past experiences and cultural environments, people's intuitions about "how to do entrepreneurship" are wrong.

Yaniv: Entrepreneurship is "business," but it is not "business" in the traditional sense, which reminds me of our first episode over 250 episodes ago, where we discussed "the misconceptions of small business thinking."

05 Narrow the Target User Scope: First Make a Few Users "Extremely Passionate"

Yaniv: Paul Graham wrote, "The ideal situation is to have a large number of users love you, but don't expect to achieve that from the start. In the early stages, you have only two choices: either meet the full needs of 'some potential users' or meet the partial needs of 'all potential users'—choose the former. From both user scale and satisfaction perspectives, the former is easier to expand; more importantly, it allows you to 'not deceive yourself.'"

"For example, you might think, 'The product is only 15% away from being excellent,' but how can you be sure it isn't 30% or even 90% away? The metric of 'user numbers' is actually easier to quantify. This is quite similar to the previous point; the core is 'don't dabble superficially with a large number of users and deceive yourself into thinking, "They all get value from the product, and that's enough." If you haven't thoroughly solved the pain points of a portion of people, you haven't made any substantial progress at all.'"

Chris: The previous point was "understanding users," and this point is "narrowing the user scope you want to focus on." For example, if you say, "I want to create a great product for women," that is simply unrealistic because the global female population is too vast, with too many differing needs and pain points.

You must narrow the user scope to "extremely narrow": for example, "women aged 18-25 in California, from affluent families, looking for more comfortable running shoes, who jog every morning." This scope should be narrow enough to make you feel uneasy or even embarrassed: "Oh my, how could such a narrow group possibly make a business?" This is precisely what Peter Thiel refers to as "creating a monopoly in a niche."

You want to make "those women in California who jog every morning" your die-hard fans, encouraging them to recommend your brand to others in their circle; then, others will follow suit: "Cool girls wear this brand; even if I don't jog, I have to buy a pair." After that, you can expand your user base to include "women who walk every day," "trend followers," and "luxury seekers."

You must first monopolize a niche before gradually expanding your "minimum viable user group." Conversely, if you create a "generic product that is no different from other shoes," no one will care, and it won't solve anyone's pain points. Therefore, Paul's advice is very clear: find your niche and focus on serving them.

06 Provide "Exceeding Expectations" Customer Service; "Inability to Scale" is Precisely the Advantage of Entrepreneurship

Chris: The sixth principle is "provide exceeding expectations customer service." Paul wrote, "Users are used to being treated perfunctorily; most companies they deal with are 'quasi-monopolies,' and even if the service is outrageously poor, no one cares. Your perception of the 'service ceiling' will also be unconsciously lowered by these experiences."

"Try to make your customer service not just 'good,' but 'exceeding expectations': proactively put effort into genuinely satisfying users, and they will be deeply touched. In the early stages of entrepreneurship, providing 'unscalable' customer service is worthwhile; it's a great way to understand users."

Yaniv: I particularly agree with this point, but there is a small contradiction in Paul's statement: he says "poor customer service in large companies is due to quasi-monopolies," but then acknowledges that "top-notch customer service is often difficult to scale." In fact, for early-stage startups, "inability to scale" is precisely your advantage.

In the early stages of entrepreneurship, many things are against you due to "lack of scale": no resources, no funding, no users, no brand… But you can do "what large companies cannot do," such as providing top-notch customer service. In fact, founders should try to do customer service themselves as much as possible. I have had this experience: if a founder of a startup directly emails me to provide feedback or answer my questions, I would be pleasantly surprised, even a bit taken aback (in a good way): "Wow, the founder personally contacted me; they really care about the product, understand it, and are willing to listen to my opinions."

Even if there are minor issues with the product, I would forgive them. As Paul said, this kind of customer service can establish extremely strong user loyalty, and no large company can replicate it. Not just quasi-monopolies, but all large companies cannot scale this "extreme customer service." So, seize this advantage that "large companies cannot achieve" and don't waste this opportunity.

Chris: I want to add a small point to Paul's view: for Silicon Valley-style "software-driven startups," the core is to "break user expectations," using a "user-centered" mindset and software to fundamentally reconstruct the product, completely overturning the "mediocre experience."

So, it's not just customer service that should exceed expectations; the product itself, its practicality, and the registration experience (like opening a new bank account, registering for ChatGPT, using an advertising platform) should all far exceed user expectations because these companies start from "first principles," combining software and user thinking in their design. Most companies today are "offensively monopolistic," and their experiences cannot compare.

The second point is another example of "going against intuition": after being in a large company for a long time, you might think, "Everyone wants to work with large companies," and you get used to referring to yourself as "we" (for example, "We at XYZ Group do it this way"), fearing that others will discover "the company is actually just two founders working in a garage," and you try every means to appear "big."

But startups are the opposite: users want to know your entrepreneurial story, want to know who is behind it, and want to know that you are genuinely working hard to solve problems. This is completely different from "the official demeanor of large companies."

Finally, regarding "doing unscalable customer service," this is actually related to another often misunderstood point of Paul's, "doing unscalable things." Many people misunderstand this; for example, they might say, "Chris, I am currently doing consulting because Paul said 'it's okay to do unscalable things.'"

But what Paul really means is: "Doing unscalable customer service is to support your 'scalable product.'" For example, Airbnb's classic case: in the early days, they sent photographers to take pictures of listings (this is unscalable), but the "short-term rental transaction platform" they ultimately built is scalable.

So the core is "using unscalable things to pave the way for scalable products/platforms/businesses," not "just doing unscalable things randomly." This point is very important.

Yaniv: Doing "unscalable things" (especially customer service) also serves another purpose: it is a way of "user exploration." Didn't the previous principle say "to deeply understand users"? Doing customer service personally is a great way to understand users.

Chris: But there is a pitfall here: many inexperienced founders (for example, those who haven't participated in Y Combinator or received guidance from Paul Graham) may fall into the trap of "over-developing products for individual users." So this requires judgment: you need to listen to users and learn from feedback, but you also cannot "over-focus on individual users." This is truly a skill.

07 Choosing the Right Metrics is Important; Timing is Also Key

Yaniv: "What you measure is what you build." Paul wrote, "The act of 'measuring a metric' itself has a magical 'improvement effect.' For example, if you want to increase the number of users, find a big white sheet of paper and stick it on the wall, recording the number of users every day. When the number goes up, you'll be happy; when it goes down, you'll feel disappointed. Soon you'll discover 'which actions can make the numbers rise,' and then you'll naturally do more of those things." "But be careful: choosing the right metrics is very important."

Chris: This is why "only looking at revenue" is dangerous. If your core metric is revenue, the fastest way to increase revenue is to "do customized deployments for large companies": sell large enterprise contracts and create bespoke software to meet all personalized needs. Revenue goes up, and you might even quickly achieve breakeven, which seems great, but this model cannot scale.

What you should really measure are: active user numbers, customer acquisition cost (CAC), customer lifetime value (LTV), user retention rate, revenue costs, and the company's "scalability potential."

There is a key point that no one mentions: the previous principles mentioned "doing unscalable things and deeply serving users," but remember to "do it for free." If you charge users (for example, charging consulting fees or one-time project fees), they become "paying customers" rather than "test subjects" for validating your product, and you will then rely on this "non-scalable revenue," making it hard to escape.

So you need to "measure metrics with scalability potential": initially, you might focus on "active users" and "retention rates," and later shift to "revenue," "LTV," and "return on investment." The key is that "timing must be right."

Yaniv: I have complex feelings about this principle because Paul ultimately mentions "pay attention to choosing the right metrics," which reminds me of my favorite "Goodhart's Law": "When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric."

This is similar to the issue with KPIs (Key Performance Indicators): once a certain metric is set as a KPI, people will go to great lengths to increase that number, even if it means doing "things that are not beneficial to the business." For example, if you want to increase "product usage," and set "user count" as a metric, someone might manipulate the "user definition" to include "people who accidentally clicked notifications" as "active users."

When I worked at Google, we had a situation with Google+: to "increase active user numbers," Google+ was shoved into various unrelated places (like the notification bar), and if users accidentally clicked the notification, they were counted as "active Google+ users." This was absurd.

So you must be vigilant: most of the time, "the metrics you measure" are just "proxies" for "what you truly care about," rather than "the thing itself." If you focus too much on the metrics, "the connection between the metrics and the core goals" will gradually disappear.

So the conclusion is: measure metrics, focus on "important metrics," and strive to improve them, but don't "overdo it." Go back to first principles and think clearly about "what problem you really want to solve," understanding that "metrics are just imperfect substitutes."

Chris: I've shared this story on the podcast before, but I still think of it every time: when I was at Uber, I had a business review meeting with a group of people who were hostile to our business. They kept fixating on "data not growing," repeatedly saying, "We need to increase the first-order volume."

I tried to patiently explain, "The developer platform is not the core tool for increasing first-order volume; there are more appropriate metrics and methods," but they only recognized "the first-order volume number," saying, "Chris, that's how the OKRs are set; the numbers have to meet this standard." In the end, I couldn't help but blurt out, "I don't care about those numbers at all."

Yaniv: That's why you no longer work at Uber.

Chris: Right, the whole room went silent. At Uber, saying "I don't care about data, I don't care about numbers" was practically "heresy." But the problem is: they claimed to be "starting from first principles," but they weren't doing it at all; the number itself was wrong.

I don't care who set the OKRs or how much they liked them; I was operating with a "founder's mindset": I wasn't there to "preserve the OKRs," but to "drive real business growth." So, you need to have principles, and the team must be "principled people" who know "when the numbers don't matter."

08 Focus on "Capital Efficiency"

Chris: Paul wrote, "I must emphasize how important 'low-cost operations' are for startups. Most startups fail because 'they run out of money before creating a product that users want'—lack of funds is the most common reason for failure."

"'Low cost' is almost synonymous with 'rapid iteration,' but it goes beyond that: a 'low-cost culture' allows a company to remain 'young,' just as exercise keeps a person youthful."

What he means is: "Low-cost operations enable a company to stay flexible and agile, providing more 'runway' to experiment, learn, and iterate."

Yaniv: Am I going to "refute" Paul again? Recently, I posted on LinkedIn saying, "Be frugal, but don't be cheap." What's the difference?

"Cheap" means "not spending money when you should": clearly spending money can bring huge returns, yet you only focus on "spending the least amount." Returning to the previous point: if your KPI is "the less you spend, the better," you will only focus on "not spending money," neglecting "the true purpose of spending," which is actually two different things from what Paul wants to express.

I'm not really refuting him; I just feel that "using every penny wisely extends the runway for experimentation and provides more opportunities for iteration, and that's key; this is called frugality." The core is "making every penny meaningful," not "simply spending the least amount."

Chris: I prefer to use the term "efficiency," "capital efficiency": for every dollar spent, you should pursue maximum returns. Sometimes you have to spend more: for example, hiring top talent that can "drive business leaps," investing in ads that can "open up markets," or buying software that is "more time and cost-efficient than developing it yourself."

The term "frugal" can sometimes carry negative connotations, so "capital efficiency" is more accurate. What we really want to say is the same thing: spend wisely, pursue results, and move quickly.

09 Achieve "Ramen Profitability"

Yaniv: "Achieving 'Ramen Profitability'" means that a startup's income is just enough to cover the founder's living expenses.

Paul said, "This is not 'rapid business model experimentation' (though it can serve that purpose), but more like a way to 'crack the funding process.' Once you achieve ramen profitability, your relationship with investors will change completely, and it will greatly benefit team morale."

Chris: This principle is especially applicable to early-stage startups, where the team is small (possibly just a few founders), and there's no need to hire customer service or build complex structures; they can quickly learn and iterate using a "small and agile" model.

However, as the company grows to a certain stage, you need to "invest in advance" (this is also the role of venture capital). Theoretically, you should have the ability to "maintain operations even after streamlining costs"; if not, you can cut some non-core businesses, and the company can still run.

Moreover, "not lacking money" will indeed change your relationship with investors. Yaniv, we talked before the recording about "having the courage to tell investors 'you're wrong,' and the courage to stand up and say 'sorry, we're not a good fit.'" When you really need an investor's money, it's hard to do that; but if you don't lack money, your situation will be much better.

However, I want to remind you: the core logic of venture capital is "investing in advance," putting money in before the company is profitable or breaks even, so the timing of "ramen profitability" is crucial; it's not applicable at all stages. Unless you've participated in Y Combinator, it's hard to grasp this balance.

Yaniv: Chris, I want to put it another way: this principle is more suitable for "early-stage founders," especially "young founders with light living burdens," who have no spouse or children and can live on ramen. But if you have a three-year-old child, you can't let the child eat ramen every day, right? So the "timing" you mentioned is crucial.

Yaniv: What is the core value of "ramen profitability"? As Paul said, it can completely change your relationship with investors. Why? Because you have the "leverage to walk away."

So I prefer to say: "Put yourself in a position where you can say no to investors." How to do this should be adjusted according to your life stage:

When you're young, you may not have much money but have time and no burdens; at this time, the ramen profitability model of "extreme frugality, relying on product income to just cover personal living expenses" is very reasonable.
As you get older (this might sound a bit like "toxic positivity," as not everyone has this condition), if you want to start a business, it's best to save some personal savings first. After all, you have some experience and are likely to save money; at this point, the "leverage to say no to investors" comes from "self-funding ability." You don't have to lower your living standards to "eating ramen," but you can say: "I have 12 to 18 months of personal funds to invest in the project; even if no one invests, I can sustain myself."

Of course, self-funding has its downsides, but like ramen profitability, it can give you "the leverage to refuse investors." First, this can help you avoid making poor decisions by "working with mismatched investors."

More importantly, anyone who has done negotiations (even those who haven't) knows: "The strongest negotiating chip is 'being truly willing to walk away.'" The less urgently you need money, the easier it is to raise funds. So no matter what stage of life you're in, you should find ways to make yourself "not desperate," which is the core logic behind Paul Graham's statement.

Chris: This reminds me of something that might be a bit off-topic: one of the sharpest criticisms of Y Combinator is that it operates like a "production line," utilizing a group of young, daring, and resilient founders to work hard, ultimately helping Paul Graham and YC make a lot of money.

I think this assessment is somewhat unfair; YC has indeed provided many young people with opportunities and even helped some become millionaires. But it is undeniable that it does have a bit of a "production line" feel, and the pace is quite tight.

Another point is: when you're young, your advantages are "low living costs, fewer burdens, plenty of energy, and the ability to fight hard"; as you age, these advantages turn into "greater focus, more experience, and broader networks." So, as you said, you need to leverage your stage advantages. Paul's view on "ramen profitability" actually also implies YC's strategy of finding those "young people who can survive on ramen for a long time."

Yaniv: Exactly, as you age, your "forms of capital" will change. Make good use of this capital and don't let yourself be completely constrained by investors; this is the core message I read from this statement.

10 Focus on Core Issues, Actively Create a "Low-Distraction Environment"

Chris: The tenth principle: "Avoid distractions." Paul wrote, "Nothing can destroy a startup more than 'distractions.' The worst distractions are 'money-making activities,' such as part-time jobs, consulting, or profitable side gigs."

Paul also said, "Startups may have greater long-term potential, but you will always interrupt core work for 'quick money,' like answering consulting calls. Ironically, fundraising also counts as a distraction, so it should be minimized as well."

He was talking about "external distractions." Many founders are busy building communities, participating in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, organizing events, and being active on LinkedIn, doing various things unrelated to the core business of the company.

But I think "internal distractions" are equally terrifying and even harder to detect: for example, "scattering focus on alternatives," "pursuing multiple goals simultaneously," "treating 17 things as priorities," and those "clients who pay you a lot but lead you astray."

So "avoiding distractions" is essentially still a matter of "focus"—we've discussed this countless times, and it cannot be overstated.

Yaniv: You're right to add that distractions are not just external; there are various types. The core task of entrepreneurship is "understanding user pain points, rapidly iterating solutions, and then scaling," and in the process, you also need to "do unscalable things to pave the way for future scalability," all of which require intense focus.

However, the world, society, and even our human nature are "anti-focus": there are too many things that can divert your attention. So sometimes you need to "design your lifestyle": if you want to reduce distractions, actively create a "low-distraction environment," which is what Paul is trying to express.

To do well in entrepreneurship, you need to "reduce things that lead you away from the core," because your focus will definitely be tested, and the only way to pass is to "maintain sufficient focus for a long time" until you create "a product that truly solves user problems," after which you can talk about scaling.

11 Don't Get Discouraged, Don't Give Up, Accept "Deal Failures"

Chris: I grouped the last three principles together because they are essentially the same thing: the first principle is "don't get discouraged," the second is "even if you're discouraged, don't give up," and the third is "accept deal failures," which may be the reason you're feeling "discouraged" or "wanting to give up."

The core message is simple: "Keep going." Even if you face a brick wall, you must break through and keep moving forward; you never know when a "breakthrough" will occur. The success of entrepreneurship relies on this kind of perseverance and resilience.

Yaniv: When you say "break through the brick wall," I feel it's more like "desperately holding on." Everyone says "entrepreneurship is like a roller coaster," and that's so true. In one day, you might feel "like the best in the world" one moment and "like you're worthless" the next, and this cycle can repeat day after day.

So when you feel "bad," it's easy to become weary and discouraged; these negative emotions can cling to you. Human nature's "loss aversion" makes you "feel the sting of failure more intensely than the joy of success": after experiencing multiple failures, you might want to give up.

I'm currently fundraising, and I know all too well how common "rejections" and "deal failures" are. We've often said, "Don't celebrate too early; nothing counts until it's done." And remember: "A deal failure is not a personal denial of you"; even if it is a form of evaluation of the company, it doesn't mean "the person rejecting you is knowledgeable."

So lift your head, keep pushing through, and don't forget why you started. If Paul's 13 "somewhat outdated" pieces of advice aren't enough, you need someone to "deeply understand your company and provide detailed guidance while you're on the roller coaster."

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。

Starting a business with AI requires re-reading Paul Graham's "13 Points on Startups."