> The vast majority of tech companies aren't built to scale either, and the entire VC model is built around the assumption that in a portfolio of 10 companies,

> The vast majority of tech companies aren't built to scale either, and the entire VC model is built around the assumption that in a portfolio of 10 companies, 5-6 of them will fail as well. The latter isn't good evidence for the former. VC-backed startups are explicitly designed to either fail fast or grow quickly. So they simultaneously have a higher failure rate than standard small businesses and a higher rate of becoming $100M+ companies. > I think "VC-backed startup" captures the thing Paul Graham is talking about That's fine (and I agree that it's a more thorough definition), but I don't think it's useful to require a redefinition of a word that most people in the community already understand to mean high-growth VC-backed companies. > You probably don't want to get me started on the growth and return potential of a consulting shop doing a regular 6 figures of revenue. Honestly, I really really do. :) To be clear, I've had lots of success selling my time (either as a developer or, occasionally, managing a small team of contractors) but not at scaling myself.