4 ms·

It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with building a sustainable business while retaining full ownership. The notion that you absolutely need to acc

It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with building a sustainable business while retaining full ownership. The notion that you absolutely need to accept funding is getting tired because it's not supported by facts and grounded in reality. I am currently bootstrapping a business and I have been approached by VCs who asked me to please take their money. I have turned them down because, as I politely told them, I don't need it, AND I am not looking to simply flip the company some day (no sane investor will invest unless the company can be sold in some form and they get their money back). Some people may also wish to avoid having a boss, and if you think your VC is not your boss in some capacity at least, you're in for a rude awakening. Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous. There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.

exelius 10y ago
> There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. Nothing wrong with it at all; but keep in mind you are posting on the message boards of an organization (YCombinator) that is deeply invested in the Silicon Valley venture ecosystem. The "growth at all costs" mentality is bound to be quite prevalent among the posters on here as a result. It's just the audience that HN draws.
- pop8row9 10y ago
  > It's just the audience that HN draws. The content of this thread seems to contradict this claim.
onewaystreet 10y ago
It's irrational for someone running a startup to be categorically against raising money. It's not for someone running a lifestyle business. A lifestyle business is not a startup.
- privateersman 10y ago
  A startup is a new business. It's not anything special. It looks like you are falling for propaganda. When someone wants to purchase a car or a home, there's such a momentum behind the idea of financing that a customer who uses their own savings is viewed as odd... perhaps even a money launderer, yet it's perfectly normal. I mention that because there's a similar momentum behind business financing. If you build software for a living, then you can build a new business with no overheads, no ties, no time limits, no favours, no budgets, no business plan and low risk. It's pure freedom to do what you want.
  - erichocean 10y ago
    > A startup is a new business. It's not anything special. Your host, Y Combinator, strongly disagrees: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html First two sentences in the linked article: > A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      Of course he does. A successful startup in the eyes of VCs grows fast. It has to, so VCs have some hope of making a non-stupid return. Which is why we get all the drama around unicorns etc etc and more etc. Does that mean that you, as a founder, have any obligation to play that game? No. You. Do. Not. If you choose not to, that's very much your choice. It gives you a number of advantages, including no loss of control over direction or everyday running, a very much lower danger of being fired from your own project, and a wider choice of potential investment sources when you've been running profitably for a while. (Are VCs the only money source in town? Not even close.) And if you have a solid business model, it significantly raises your prospects of still having a business - and a job - when the unicorn hunter scene crashes and burns around you. Which it inevitably will - possibly quite soon. The disadvantage? If the business is seriously viable with many real customers and profits and such, you may to have to settle for being a multimillionaire instead of a billionaire. Tough break.
rdtsc 10y ago
> Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous. It happens because either they had to make the decision and they accepted the money, worked for someone who has, or they are the VC who are offering the money and looking for deals. People usually project whatever they did as being a rational, right decion, and those who don't don't agree as being irrational. Also, this forum is probably one of the most biased forums when it comes to startup "things", so I wouldn't get too upset about stuff you read here.

exelius 10y ago

> There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. Nothing wrong with it at all; but keep in mind you are posting on the message boards of an organization (YCombinator) that is deeply invested in the Silicon Valley venture ecosystem. The "growth at all costs" mentality is bound to be quite prevalent among the posters on here as a result. It's just the audience that HN draws.

pop8row9 10y ago
> It's just the audience that HN draws. The content of this thread seems to contradict this claim.

onewaystreet 10y ago

It's irrational for someone running a startup to be categorically against raising money. It's not for someone running a lifestyle business. A lifestyle business is not a startup.

privateersman 10y ago
A startup is a new business. It's not anything special. It looks like you are falling for propaganda. When someone wants to purchase a car or a home, there's such a momentum behind the idea of financing that a customer who uses their own savings is viewed as odd... perhaps even a money launderer, yet it's perfectly normal. I mention that because there's a similar momentum behind business financing. If you build software for a living, then you can build a new business with no overheads, no ties, no time limits, no favours, no budgets, no business plan and low risk. It's pure freedom to do what you want.
- erichocean 10y ago
  > A startup is a new business. It's not anything special. Your host, Y Combinator, strongly disagrees: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html First two sentences in the linked article: > A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Of course he does. A successful startup in the eyes of VCs grows fast. It has to, so VCs have some hope of making a non-stupid return. Which is why we get all the drama around unicorns etc etc and more etc. Does that mean that you, as a founder, have any obligation to play that game? No. You. Do. Not. If you choose not to, that's very much your choice. It gives you a number of advantages, including no loss of control over direction or everyday running, a very much lower danger of being fired from your own project, and a wider choice of potential investment sources when you've been running profitably for a while. (Are VCs the only money source in town? Not even close.) And if you have a solid business model, it significantly raises your prospects of still having a business - and a job - when the unicorn hunter scene crashes and burns around you. Which it inevitably will - possibly quite soon. The disadvantage? If the business is seriously viable with many real customers and profits and such, you may to have to settle for being a multimillionaire instead of a billionaire. Tough break.

rdtsc 10y ago

> Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous. It happens because either they had to make the decision and they accepted the money, worked for someone who has, or they are the VC who are offering the money and looking for deals. People usually project whatever they did as being a rational, right decion, and those who don't don't agree as being irrational. Also, this forum is probably one of the most biased forums when it comes to startup "things", so I wouldn't get too upset about stuff you read here.