After reading your comment, I went back and read the original article again. I believe you have made some very good points and no one can really argue against

After reading your comment, I went back and read the original article again. I believe you have made some very good points and no one can really argue against them except I believe the main point of the article was much simpler than that, which is what the author calls "dynastic", as in dynastic company, dynastic exit and therefore dynastic funding (from VC). My own experience with starting and running startups is that time has changed. I am not saying that time has changed completely such that the old model (get VC money to do R&D) does not exist, I am just (humbly) saying that a new model has emerged that allows entrepreneur to "bootstrap" a meaningful company with sustainable and meaningful revenues. And when time comes to scale the company, one can always go out for more money. That path has not gone away just because you bootstrap, except now you are treating VC money as working capital (not R&D grant). It really comes down to impedance matching which I think is the important point of the original article. Should we match the impedance for the VC which means big exit, big company and big funding? Or should we try to match the impedance for the entrepreneurs which calls for modest exit, modest company and modest funding? I am a successful example of the latter which is what I call "getting a medium slice of a medium pie". My last company is completely bootstrapped. Six founders worked three years with no salaries. They then took a modest amount of angel money to launch the product and buy inventory. Now the company is very successful. Late-stage VC's are kicking the door down to want to buy a piece of the action. And I took an early retirement to write a book. It can work. http://www.StartupForLess.org http://www.StartupForLess.org