I'm a founder of a company that had "mid-success" (a few times over). I mostly agree with this article and when I see companies in my former market raising $10

I'm a founder of a company that had "mid-success" (a few times over). I mostly agree with this article and when I see companies in my former market raising $100M+ rounds I always cringe. > But as a general rule, the longer you delude your investors here, the worse shape you’ll be in. This is true, but the real problem is not deluding your investors but deluding yourself. It's often necessary to have unreasonable optimism to overcome every hurdles along the way. Knowing when that optimism crosses the line can be difficult especially in the bubble of fundraising. > Very often I’ve seen cases where founders know in their hearts they have an airplane but are able to convince good investors it might still be a spaceship. This really causes a lot of heartache, and often precludes your opportunity for a good acquisition later. The point about over-raising limiting future options really resonates. It's one of the saddest things that can happen: all of the hard work has been done to build a viable business, but in the rush to get there too much money was raised, so the the cap table has gotten to the point where any reasonable exit will yield the founders and employees almost nothing. So frustrating. > Let’s define a “really good airplane” as a company that has profitability within reach and is on track to be worth $100 million with several more years of hard work. Here's the thing. Airplanes can get much bigger than $100M, they just take longer to get there. They have to fight their way there and rarely get the spotlight. That's just the way some markets are, no matter how great the product, no matter how smart the team. It's a shame when founders build a real company but destroy the value of its equity by trying to make it something that it's not.