5 ms·

This update was just posted to our blog: This was originally posted as part of our “Profitable & Proud” series but commenters rightly pointed out that Shopify’

This update was just posted to our blog: This was originally posted as part of our “Profitable & Proud” series but commenters rightly pointed out that Shopify’s angel investor broke the “no funding” rule that is part of the series. We’ll leave the interview up but we’re removing it from the P&P series. We’re sorry about confusing our readers and Shopify (we are the ones who originally approached them about participating). Thanks to all who pointed out the error and stay tuned for another P&P profile that does fit the bill.

sajid 16y ago
This is an odd decision. The Shopify story seems to be consistent with both the letter and spirit of the P&P series. It's consistent with the literal interpretation of the rules because they state "didn't take VC" and not "didn't take funding". *See my earlier post in this thread to see why I think it's also consistent with the spirit of the P&P series.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dhh 16y ago
  The key is that we want companies for this series that are bootstrapped. Companies that didn't take outside funding to run operations, but either put in their own money or didn't go full-time until they were profitable. Shopify is still a great story and we're leaving it up. It just didn't fit the narrow criteria of the category we created.
  - asdflkj 16y ago
    The fact that you couldn't easily tell whether the company fits your criteria shows that your criteria are pretty much meaningless. Is there a reason for all this, besides to glorify your own company, which fits the criteria? "Ideology" is the word that comes to mind. You create arbitrary divisions, and then drum up emotions to make it seem like people on the other side of the imaginary fence are different and unworthy.
    - tuxychandru 16y ago
      Beyond ideology, this series can help entrepreneurs in regions where VCs are highly conservative and bootstrapping is the only way you can even take risky business decisions.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

sajid 16y ago

This is an odd decision. The Shopify story seems to be consistent with both the letter and spirit of the P&P series. It's consistent with the literal interpretation of the rules because they state "didn't take VC" and not "didn't take funding". *See my earlier post in this thread to see why I think it's also consistent with the spirit of the P&P series.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dhh 16y ago
The key is that we want companies for this series that are bootstrapped. Companies that didn't take outside funding to run operations, but either put in their own money or didn't go full-time until they were profitable. Shopify is still a great story and we're leaving it up. It just didn't fit the narrow criteria of the category we created.
- asdflkj 16y ago
  The fact that you couldn't easily tell whether the company fits your criteria shows that your criteria are pretty much meaningless. Is there a reason for all this, besides to glorify your own company, which fits the criteria? "Ideology" is the word that comes to mind. You create arbitrary divisions, and then drum up emotions to make it seem like people on the other side of the imaginary fence are different and unworthy.
  - tuxychandru 16y ago
    Beyond ideology, this series can help entrepreneurs in regions where VCs are highly conservative and bootstrapping is the only way you can even take risky business decisions.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]