3 ms·

I was thinking the same. Technically, they didn't take VC, they took angel investment. They are different, but I completely agree on your point as I wrote in my

by jonpaul 16y ago

I was thinking the same. Technically, they didn't take VC, they took angel investment. They are different, but I completely agree on your point as I wrote in my comment on SVN blog. I don't get how they can claim to be a bootstrapped company when they did indeed take angel investment. I would love for someone to shed some insight.

staunch 16y ago
Here's some insight: It's hard to find successful startups that are truly 100% bootstrapped. 37 signals entire purpose for doing these posts will be undermined if they can't find a good number of companies that fit their theoretical profile.
- alec 16y ago
  It seems likely that 37 Signal's primary purpose for doing these posts is to raise brand awareness.
- jasonfried 16y ago
  It's not hard to find. We've got over a dozen stories lined up so far and we're hearing from more businesses every day. This one shouldn't have been posted as part of this series. We definitely want to keep this series clean and clear with no ambiguity.
  - sutro 16y ago
    So you guys wouldn't fit this criteria either, right, having taken money from Bezos?
    - dhh 16y ago
      No investment money was spent funding operations. That's the criteria we're using for this series.
sajid 16y ago
It's not really an angel investment either. Just like a VC, an angel typically hopes to cash out at some point in the future via an acquisition or IPO. In this case, the investor received common stock. Which means he hopes to generate a return on his investment from his share of the profits. This is in keeping with 37signals' focus on profitable companies, as opposed to startups which are built to flip.