"I’m not sure who decided that three months was a magic number for accelerator programs."

That's kind of funny to read. I never thought about it before, but I suppose the others must not emphasize the origins of their features, which must in turn make them seem rather arbitrary.

The 3 month duration comes from the fact that YC was originally meant to be a summer program for undergraduates (http://ycombinator.com/start.html).

So did the other accelerators simply copy your model?

I wouldn't say "simply" because they did it at different times and with different degrees of fidelity, and many have now copied copies.

Having been through one of the smaller accelerators named in this pier I just want to say, amen. Nobody talks about the stress of being picked over by investors like a piece of meat, and of falling out of favor with the program's organizers, because you're not showing the traction in the first ONE or TWO months they thought you would.

For those who can handle the pressure cooker, a big payoff is possible. But yes, buyer beware.

Without a doubt the proliferation of accelerators means a lot more opportunity for startups. But keeping in mind that these are for-profit enterprises is critical to success.

I missed the bit about founders in the title and was wondering why would accelerators in a device not be able to detect up? The the dead rotation axis wouldn't interfere.

Funding seems to be the only proxy for how we're judging accelerators, so some of this is expected. Think we'll see more and more companies joining that already have traction--because they can leverage the program better to get big rounds than someone at the mvp stage. Sort of a shame that is the goal.

Good to mention market transparency after demo day. I hadn't thought of that. Though, once you build the prototype, you'll be looking for funding anyways.

Maybe it's just the most efficient form of presenting? I feel like the benefits at that stage really outweigh the risks.