It is interesting to see how one competitor assesses the demise of another but the author does not really offer much to show that "VC is a competitive disadvant

It is interesting to see how one competitor assesses the demise of another but the author does not really offer much to show that "VC is a competitive disadvantage" or that it really was instrumental in EventVue's failure in this instance. The EventVue post explaining the failure (linked in the post) identifies several key mistakes involving flawed execution but not suggesting that the company had overextended itself on account of its funding. The money raised was apparently a small angel round, with a somewhat larger follow-on round, one would assume from the same angels. At some point, they determined that there was no good market worth pursuing and shut it down. I don't see anything here to implicate VC funding as the culprit. In saying that, I would add that I love bootstrap companies and believe that, in general, they represent the wave of the future for the startup world. I just don't think anything in this piece supports the idea that VC funding kills companies (VC funding, whatever its shortcomings, is and always will be an integral, and major, part of the startup world and, indeed, of its premier segment). A prime strategy of many of the bootstrap companies I work with is to use bootstrapping, coupled with angel funding, to build valuation while deferring any attempt at VC funding and, then, once initial goals are met, to approach VCs from a position of comparative strength and high valuation so as to get good terms. Others, of course, seek to bootstrap their way toward an acquisition. I would say only a minority plan to build for the long-term in the way the author of this piece discusses (this path can be treacherous in fast-changing tech markets). The post itself is a good one. I just think the author assumes rather than proves his point about the effect of VC funding on a startup.