Advertise on podcast: Year One

You have to hear this one because it starts at month fourteen, with real users, real revenue, and a Series A bar you haven't quite cleared. Nothing forces your hand, which means you have time to make a bad decision slowly, and the stakes are whether your next round funds a plan or just hides a gap. On this episode of Year One, hosts Miles and Grant follow a hypothetical composite founder through three options: a SAFE extension in the $1.5 to $3 million range, a priced A anyway, or cutting burn to reach default alive. They look at how common missing the bar is, what each path costs, and why an extension only works as a bridge if you name a falsifiable milestone before the money lands. No YC partner joins the conversation. Instead, they read the choice through YC's default alive definition and its 2022 guidance as reported by TechCrunch, which they flag as dated, and the founder's decision stays open. It's especially relevant for seed-stage founders weighing an extension while their runway quietly shrinks.

Two YC founders are sitting on seed rounds sized for a market that no longer exists, and neither knows yet whether they'll clear the bar. One raised in Summer '25, the other in Winter '26, both roughly a year out from Demo Day with normal $3-4M rounds and no guarantee of what comes next. This episode of Year One tracks their live, unresolved odds against a Series A threshold that has roughly tripled since 2021, now demanding $2-5M in ARR and 2-3x growth just to get a meeting. A YC partner weighs in with a cross-portfolio view spanning hundreds of startups and a $15.5M median Series A, offering a rare look at what actually separates the fifteen to twenty percent who graduate from the rest. Anyone weighing whether to grind or pivot in their own post-seed year will recognize exactly what's at stake here.

Nadia walked into YC's F26 kickoff carrying the shadow of a number nobody in the room would say out loud: the $200 million valuation her company, Nine Mothers, hit as an eight-month-old startup in the S26 batch. Every founder in the new class had done the math, and Year One hosts Grant and Miles are back to find out what happens when an entire incoming cohort gets recalibrated by one outlier deal before they've even shipped a product. This episode follows the three-day, in-person F26 kickoff in San Francisco, from the roughly 400 founders and 200 companies sorted into nine-person house groups to the moment a YC partner names the Nine Mothers print directly and coaches founders to price on fundamentals, not headlines. Grant and Miles trace how the S26 story spread through alumni nights and Bookface, why the July 27 application deadline mattered, and what December 2, 2026 now means as F26's own Demo Day countdown begins. Anyone building through their first YC batch, or just trying to ignore a number that won't stop haunting the room, will want this one.

Four founders, one CNC machine, and a pitch that stopped a room full of investors cold: Greypoint Industries is building drone technology to compete with defense primes that have decades of institutional weight behind them. Jordan Khoo left General Dynamics to build LEGION, and the stakes are as much personal as strategic, invoking Canada's Avro Arrow cancellation as the mission he refuses to repeat. On this episode of Year One, Miles and Grant dig into why YC's Summer 2026 batch shifted so heavily toward industrials and hardware, what a signed Canadian government contract and armed forces demo actually prove about traction, and why hardware founders accept slower fundraising clocks and zero SaaS margins as the cost of building something real. They also unpack whether Greypoint's early buzz is signal or story. Essential listening for anyone weighing a YC application in hard tech, or founders wondering if physical products can still win in an AI-obsessed funding climate.

Days before Demo Day, a $200 million valuation for an unnamed S26 startup lands in a YC founder group chat and won't stop spreading. On this episode of Year One, Miles and Grant trace how that single number rewrites every other founder's negotiation in the batch, then reveal the company behind it: 9 Mothers, a counter-drone defense startup out of Austin, and the Palmer Luckey and Garry Tan context (via TBPN) that fueled the hype. They dig into Rebel Fund's data showing over a third of the W26 batch scored in YC's top tier, then pressure-test what that grade actually predicts. Michael Seibel's own 2007 Justin.tv numbers get pulled in as a reality check against today's inflated benchmarks. This one's especially useful for founders mid-fundraise who keep comparing their term sheet to someone else's headline, and for anyone trying to separate real signal from Demo Day noise.

The applause hasn't even faded and the phones are already lighting up. This episode of Year One picks up in the 72 hours after S26's Demo Day, when term sheets start arriving with clocks attached and top companies field hundreds of offers before the weekend is over. The stakes are immediate: sign fast on incomplete information, or risk losing a hot deal while trying to compare offers against a market that suddenly looks like 2021 again. We break down why default SAFE caps have jumped from $2M-on-$20M to $4M-on-$40M in three years, what YC's own reasoning for same-day asks actually is, and how a generous-looking cap can quietly cost a founder more equity down the road. We also walk through a simple test for telling real investor conviction from manufactured urgency before the inbox even fills up. Essential listening for founders staring down their own term sheet clock, or anyone trying to understand how Demo Day money actually moves.

Nadia has just opened the YC decision email she has been waiting on for weeks, and in this episode you hear the exact moment she finds out if her company’s next year is completely rewritten. The stakes are simple and huge: either she’s in and locked into a YC batch, or she has to rebuild the plan she’s been working toward all summer. You have to hear this one because Nadia reads the verdict out loud, processes it in real time, and immediately loops in her cofounder before she even lets herself react. From there, Miles and Grant bring the YC partner back on mic to break down what this outcome structurally changes for her next 90 days, and what the alternate path would have looked like if the answer had been no. Together they unpack what “useful feedback” really means, what founders who don’t get in actually do next, and how persistence shows up beyond the polished success stories, all through the lens of Year One decisions that compound. Published August 25, 2026, this episode is especially relevant if you’re anywhere near hitting submit on your own YC application.

Ten days before Y Combinator's August 28 decision date, founder Nadia is stuck in the kind of limbo that quietly reshapes how she runs her company. Her Fall 2026 seed round may hinge on a single letter, and on this episode of Year One, hosts Grant and Miles push past the surface to find out if that wait is a real bet or a story she's telling herself. Nadia walks through exactly what she built and cut in her last four weeks, and Grant catches her rounding up a revenue number in a moment that says more than the numbers themselves — raising the question of whether her roadmap was built for customers or for three YC partners in a room. The conversation doesn't stop at acceptance odds; Grant runs the real math on rejection, the investor process she hasn't started, and what a YC partner says separates founders who use uncertainty well from those who freeze in it. Essential listening for any founder currently staring down their own countdown.

Nadia read the email four times and still couldn't parse it. An ambiguous status update from Y Combinator landed Tuesday night, and what followed was ninety seconds of dead air before she said a word. On this episode of Year One, hosts Miles and Grant trace the exact month leading up to her August 28th decision date: the pilot customer she chased, the six-week feature she killed after it went unused, the ops hire she postponed to protect runway, and the parallel fundraise she quietly shut down without telling half her team. Grant presses on what Nadia won't say directly, including a co-founder question she deflects twice, while Miles brings in YC's own guidance on how partners read the waiting period as evidence, not dead time. They also break down what actually changes operationally the morning a founder gets a yes versus a no. This one's especially relevant if you're mid-application, mid-wait, or making decisions right now that assume an outcome you don't actually control yet.

Founder Nadia submitted her YC Fall 2026 application just before the July 27 deadline, and now she's twenty-four days into total silence, waiting for an interview invite she can't control. In this Year One episode, she reveals the real bets she made during the wait: an engineering hire she paused and can't fully explain, a vague team update that skirted the numbers YC applicants are told to include, and a fundraise she's put on hold, telling investors to wait until after the decision date. When pressed, she goes quiet on whether she was straight with them about her timeline. The hosts bring in reported YC data on acceptance rates and the shift to four annual batches, reframing a possible rejection as a costly quarter rather than a company-ending verdict, then test whether Nadia's rehearsed 'no' plan actually holds up. This one's especially relevant for founders sitting in their own YC silence right now, wondering what their inbox is actually costing them.

Eight minutes before the YC Fall 2026 application deadline closed on July 27, Nadia deleted a paragraph about her co-founder — and on this episode of Year One, Miles and Grant press her on whether that was real editing or something else entirely. The stakes are immediate: her one-line pitch went through four rewrites, she bet on a smaller retention number over a bigger one, and two critical figures — her runway and her co-founder's actual equity split — never made it into the application at all. Nadia reveals she has no written plan B, unlike her co-founder, while Grant and Miles walk through YC's real $500K deal terms and what the shift to four batches a year means for her odds. As of Tuesday, July 28, she's still waiting on an interview invite, with a decision due August 28. This one's essential listening for any founder staring down their own YC deadline, wondering what they left out of the document.

Alexander Benz had a new product category, a cold lead pipeline, and only two minutes to convince confused prospects to try something they had never seen before. The stakes were simple and brutal: fix onboarding or watch high-intent YC-style leads quietly disappear. In this episode of Year One, he walks through how he turned the demo itself into the onboarding experience, from the first over-explained flows that flopped to the personalized, AI-built demo shows that now warm people up before a second call. You have to hear this one because he details the exact sequence: generating a custom podcast based on a prospect’s site, leading with listening before UI, automating a full demo page in minutes, and then using that to shift the second call into implementation instead of persuasion. Along the way, the hosts connect his UX and sales background to classic YC lessons on trust, urgency, and tailoring onboarding for complex products. Published July 27, 2026, this episode is especially relevant if you are a founder designing first-touch onboarding for a product your users have no mental model for yet.

Three weeks before her YC application deadline, a founder sat in her kitchen and stopped mid-sentence, realizing her polished traction slide left out the real reason she started the company. With July 27 at 8pm PT closing in fast, this episode of Year One follows her scramble to rewrite the story she almost submitted. Miles and Grant trace what her draft got wrong: an emotional origin story cut for a single data point, a co-founder dynamic buried in vague language, and a $500k SAFE quietly shaping every sentence she writes. Grant breaks down how YC partners actually read applications like hers, why an unshot one-minute video is now a countdown risk, and why an honest, rougher app often beats an over-polished one. They also unpack the real math behind acceptance odds and what happens if she misses the deadline entirely. This one's especially relevant if you're staring down your own YC deadline and wondering what to cut, what to keep, and what your application is quietly hiding.

When Papermark founder Marc Seitz accused insurance startup Corgi of copying his open-source dataroom software word for word, the stakes escalated fast: Corgi's own CEO admitted their AI 'vibe-coding' had produced near-identical pages, then responded with cease-and-desist letters, including one over an unrelated joke tweet. On this episode of Year One, Miles and Grant break down what actually happened, why identical wording (not identical code) is the real legal vulnerability, and how this compares to the 2024 PearAI cloning scandal. They dig into Corgi's rapid climb to a $2.6 billion valuation, the seven-day-workweek culture stories swirling around it, and whether repeat litigation spooks enterprise buyers doing due diligence. With Papermark still holding off on a lawsuit, the hosts pose an open question for the AI-native era: does aggressive legal posturing protect founders, or does it eventually cost them. Essential listening for YC founders navigating fast growth, AI tooling, and the fine line between speed and recklessness.

A YC-backed insurtech called Corgi shipped its Dataroom product on June 24th and was facing a public plagiarism accusation within twenty-four hours. The stakes were immediate: an AGPL-licensed open-source competitor posted side-by-side screenshots, Corgi blamed vibe coding, then sent cease-and-desist letters to the accuser and a founder who tweeted a joke about it. In this episode of Year One, Miles and Grant talk to an S26 founder who admits they can only explain sixty to seventy percent of their AI-generated codebase and never ran a license audit before shipping — which turns out to be Corgi's exact problem at a smaller scale. They break down the four-layer IP exposure every vibe-coded startup carries: AGPL strict liability, the Copyright Office's January 2025 ruling on AI-generated output, and the invention assignment gap that quietly kills YC Series A deals before founders know what hit them. If you're shipping with AI-assisted tools and haven't thought seriously about license scanning or invention assignment agreements, this one is required listening.