will actually double down here: imo SF is explicitly the *wrong* city for 90% of seed-stage startups to relocate to (from my experience with globally distributed founders):
> "we're going to SF" because "available resources" is often an unknowing attempt to paper over the cracks vs solving actual business issues
> a modestly-funded seed-stage startup that isn't already well-connected in SF (or carries serious cachet) is highly, highly, highly unlikely to hire the best talent in SF (everyone and their grandmother is trying to hire the best SF talent, and they will likely have "better" options). more likely, you will overpay for mid-rank talent (at best)
> many fresh founders move to SF and become disillusioned by the noise, and often the herd talks them out of pursuing their original, idiosyncratically good idea (and they pivot to align with the noise)
> bye bye runway (slash your runway due to increased expenses with questionable upside. being nimble is a feature of an early startup, and slashing runway kills it).
btw for 90% of seed founders the optimal city is not SF
optimal city is where you either 1) have access to excellent talent (that you can actually hire) or 2) close to customers.
For 90% of seed-stage startups neither of those factors are likely true