8 ms·

If you don't mind being relatively unheard of and only want to make enough money to be independent, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. It

If you don't mind being relatively unheard of and only want to make enough money to be independent, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. It does take time, effort, and a lot of mistake making, but it's like learning anything of value. I think it makes you a stronger and more independent person all around. Even though this article attempts to deliver a dose of reality, it focuses on VC backed companies which is a completely different field. VC backed startups tend to do highly risky things in an effort to increase traction and valuation as quickly as possible. Most notably, spend a lot of investor money in pursuit of those things without having any real revenue. The odds of failure skyrocket. I've seen a lot of commenters go on about survivorship bias. I believe that the real problem isn't being considered: the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators.

cyberferret 8y ago
> the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators Part of this includes the whole concept of rushing a 'knocked together' MVP out there. It all depends on the product. Yeah, if you have an app to share cat pictures on a social network, then who cares if you have a flakey cobbled together app that doesn't upload half the time. The consequences are minimal. If you have an app that is responsible for administering a life saving drug on a periodic basis, then you had better be sure the thing is polished, tested and reliable before even beginning to test it in the market. The whole 'lean' system sausage factory is just that - creating a mass production line of ideas where only less than 1% float to the top. Very often only based on the fact that the creators shouted louder than others who may have had better (or more boring) ideas.
- asdguiuiobuibui 8y ago
  Or if you're, say, building a system for self-driving cars. This Silicon Valley arrogance and recklessness has killed people. It's not just academic.
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago
    Don't understand the hang up about this. Self Driving cars were always going to kill people. It's not possible to be 100% safe but even a minute improvement over human drivers would save thousands of lives a year.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Uber has had a fatal accident with only a few million miles driven when an average human will go more like a hundred million miles per fatality. I don't understand why people insist on believing that they are already more safe than human drivers when the evidence suggests that they are currently much, much less safe.
      - jimbofisher1 8y ago
        I'm sorry where did I imply they were already safer? I think it's obvious they will continue to improve and surpassing human level is not far away.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Nonsense. Uber's self-driving cars currently have something like 30x the fatality rate of an average driver and that is in cherry-picked locations that they chose for testing and with a human driver constantly watching it to take over when it does something wrong. There is no evidence that they are anywhere close to surpassing human drivers.
        jimbofisher1 8y ago
        Given a sample size of 1 I don't think there's much to be discerned form the data at all either way. > There is no evidence that they are anywhere close to surpassing human... Famous last words.
    - im3w1l 8y ago
      And even a slight worsening could be a worthwhile tradeoff for the economic gains it would give us.
- Felz 8y ago
  What's the alternative? Overfunded waterfall-style development on fewer things nobody wants? The lean startup model seems like it works, even outside of tech. Even yes, in medicine that can kill as a failure mode. Drug development, for example, consists of trying a bunch of plausible things. (And worked until the effective, simple chemical space was exhausted.)
  - lainga 8y ago
    ...and moving a very small fraction of those drugs into long FDA trials.
    - 6cd6beb 8y ago
      I've been in a couple of those trials. They make it very clear that the drug has already been tested extensively and also do fairly extensive testing on you to make sure your vitals are within the "normal" range. I got a very clear impression that they're not throwing pills at the wall to see which one sticks. I'm also working at a startup that's had three names and just as many products, funded by a VC who's just going to start another one with most of the same people whether this one works or not. It doesn't matter one bit if this startup fails. The drug was pretty clearly indicated to work by the time a person swallowed a pill. Different worlds.
  - filleduchaos 8y ago
    Drug development certainly does not consist of trying a bunch of plausible things on the public (or even on small carefully picked groups of human trial subjects, not until after extensive tests and trials have been exhausted). And thank fuck it doesn't. Besides, it's rather disingenuous to act as though development falls on a binary between "overfunded waterfall-style development" and the current mess at many shops.
    - Felz 8y ago
      My apologies if my comment came off as disingenuous or overly binary. I'd agree you could take minimal MVPs too far. (Also, the phrase "minimal MVP" is RAS syndrome but how would I say it otherwise?) What I haven't seen is "the current mess at many shops", and I'd be interested to hear about your experiences. I've only ever experienced failure by overplanning personally, and the stark divide between progress in things that can be cheaply iterated on and things that are expensive, preplanned disasters seems important to me. This leads me to naturally think that if I wanted to make progress in e.g. medicine I should start by finding out how to make it cheap and iterable, rather than come up with comprehensive, well-funded plans.
rsp1984 8y ago
the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators. Would you mind elaborating on this? What advice concretely are you talking about and what exactly is batshit about it?
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  I think the point is that while the economics might be sound in terms of anticipated risk, risk management, and expected growth; the 'folklore' that arises to relate that learned experience in a convenient, easily understood way is often only a shadow - a poor construct - of the experience that actually keeps these systems running. Whether that's because 'trade secrets' or 'elevator speeches', whatever the reason, information gets lost, exaggerated, and permuted along the way. So sometimes it can easily become kind of batshit because of how far removed from reality - the actual guiding forces that sustain that economy, are. I don't know if you can point out concrete examples, because for every concrete example there's probably a successful startup out there that followed that model. But the exception doesn't prove the rule in systems that are fundamentally opened, like the relationship between culture (consumer, startup, academia, enterprise) and the economy. That's because those rules (advice) influence the system. You can't simultaneously account for the effect the advice will have on the system while following and dispensing the advice, unless the advice and it's effects on the system are immutable. But that's not how capitalism works.
- kabouseng 8y ago
  Not OP but I would assume one of the issues would be building and growing a business while having no monetisation strategy, but chasing growth at all costs nevertheless. Or monetisation can in no way sustain the current and future costs of the business. There are many examples, like twitter, whatsapp, homejoy, various food delivery services, springpad... etc etc etc Sometimes the strategy works though, for example Google and Facebook.
  - magnetic 8y ago
    It seemed to have worked pretty well for WhatsApp, no?
jasode 8y ago
>, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. Your "not very hard" advice also inadvertently distorts the reality of possible outcomes. Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. Whether an entrepreneur gets some friends with a bootstrap mindset to start a consulting business, publish a new magazine, or open a restaurant, the odds are that all of those will most likely fail. Any business that can provide financial independence has long odds. (I'm not including solo businesses such as freelance web consultant, insurance agent, home inspector/appraiser, solo attorney, etc.) Whether it's a bootstrap-business or VC-business, founders will still proceed forward even if it disagrees with "rational" calculations of successes/failures. It's human nature.
- onion2k 8y ago
  Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. While that's very true of startups I think there's more to it. A lot of businesses are founded in order to scale up to something that can give the founders a decent exit. If you start a business with the explicit intention of only growing to a point where it's going to give you a good lifestyle you're a lot less likely to fail. You don't need to take the risks necessary to grow. You can focus 100% on the business instead of distractions (for example, raising a round.) You're still more likely to fail than success, but not with the sort of failure rate that startups typically see.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  > Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. Depends how you define failure. The statistics I've seen suggest that around half are still in business 5 years after formation.
- katzgrau 8y ago
  Yeah, but the reasons for failure are different. A startup usually fails because the founders are convinced they can't do whatever they want to do without investors and they never raise any money. OR, they do raise money and eventually run out of it because they never made enough money to support the costs that were enabled by ... the investment. A bootstrapped business is alive as long as the founder is willing to continue trying to make it work. So a bootstrapped business doesn't fail per se — usually the founder fails to make money within the timeframe they'd hoped for and gives up. I didn't start making real money with my business until I was 4 years in. There wasn't some magical day where I got lucky and started making money. The first 4 years was me basically being an idiot and making every mistake possible. It gave me the education I needed to price my product appropriately, position it, and sell it. Some might say I'm a "survivor" but I don't think I am. I'm just determined as hell and didn't give up when I wasn't making any money. I worked freelance contracts and kept the thing going because I knew at the very least I was getting smarter even if I wasn't bringing in money, and eventually the education would probably prove useful or pay me back. Better and cheaper than grad school anyway, right? I sometimes think about the people who are "Masters of Business Administration" on paper and have never actually built or run a business. The people I know who have successfully done it aren't geniuses with a bunch of money and lots of connections. They all just had the same determination to stick with it, adapt, learn, and find their way to what they want. There is definitely some pain and self-doubt involved, but like I originally said, you come out stronger for it.
mherrmann 8y ago
> then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business As someone with a degree from Oxford (however much that may or may not mean) I find it tremendously hard even six years into it.
- ttul 8y ago
  Here I am, 13 years in. Still hard, and getting harder even though we are bigger.
  - goatherders 8y ago
    "The financial challenges remain the same, you just add more '0's to them."
    - ttul 8y ago
      And you can no longer cover payroll on your own credit card...
      - goatherders 8y ago
        Lol. Well played (and been there).
- goatherders 8y ago
  I mean this in support of your business-building quest, not as a slight: the worst businessman I know is a Professor at the Wharton School of business. Your market, competition, and execution are orders of magnitude more significant than your in-classroom education. Keep pushing, you'll get there!
  - mherrmann 8y ago
    No offense taken. I just mentioned my education to give one data point about my background.
goatherders 8y ago
>> If you don't mind being relatively unheard of and only want to make enough money to be independent, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. 100% agree agree agree. TechCrunch, tech conferences and forums (including HN) fuel the startup porn aspect of fame. And the spotlighting of a handful of companies make people think that billions of dollars are out there for the taking. You aren't going to be famous and you don't need a billion dollars. Once you accept that your lens on the world comes into a lot more focus. The last time I was in a position to raise money one of my friends said, "you're growing and there is a lot of profit...and you get to decide what to do with all the profit, include putting it in your own pocket? Raising money means you are now on a salary and have a boss. Why would you do that?" He was right and I've never thought about raising money for that project or any other ever again. Most VC founders wait 7+ years for their cash-out moment, if it ever comes at all. Build a profitable business and stop worrying about the adoration of people you don't know. Make the money, keep the money.
ModernMech 8y ago
This is very true. Building on this, entrepreneurs also seem to make the mistake of taking a business idea that may work for something small, and pitching it to a VC. This usually involves taking an otherwise modest pitch and selling it as something that could change everything, forever. I worked for a startup that did this. We took $2M to fund an idea that was going to change everything, but only in the .001% chance of hitting it big. Investors bought that pitch up. Over the course of 2 years we spent that money and tried to position the business to hit it big. In doing so, we forwent plenty of opportunities to grow the business incrementally; any time spent not aiming for the fences was a waste, because the business didn't have a future without a home run success. Taking $2M up front meant we had to meet absurdly high expectations for investors to return that money. Moderate success of the business meant a failure for investors. Even a sustainable business was a failure for investors. The only success story would be a 10x success. In the end, we took a swing at the fences and missed. We had opportunity after opportunity to pursue revenue early, to grow slowly, to take on smaller customers. But we skipped all that because in the very beginning we lit a fuse by taking too much VC money thinking it would give us more freedom, but it chained us and ultimately ruined the company. Because VCs would rather have a ruined company than a 1x success (if VCs encouraged 1x successes, they'd see fewer 10x successes since fewer startups would even try). In startup world, mediocre success meant failure. People don't understand that enough. You could make a useful product that people love, build a great company with great people and talent, attract customers, generate revenue and even profits. You could achieve all the hallmarks of a healthy, successful company and it would still be a failure in the eyes of some VCs.
mbesto 8y ago
> the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators If the floor comes out (e.g. capital dries up), then tech founders will find themselves in "the emperor has no clothes" situations. The potential externalities of this are varied: - A younger entrepreneurial business demographic who build initially unprofitable businesses based on venture capital and can no longer start businesses because there's no capital - Entrepreneurs resorting to fraud (see -> Theranos, Hampton Creek, etc) - Mental health issues, broken families, etc for people "crushing it" and realizing they're left with nothing 7 years later (see -> https://twitter.com/dhh/status/869361585613139968 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/869361585613139968 ) - Fatigued investing community who no longer deploy capital because cap tables are screwed up
stevensonbaines 8y ago
are you in a needy situation , seeking the help of a legit credit repair specialist/ethical hacker. there are not many that can do what this man is capable of . i got introduced to this credit specialist with the contact mail q u a d h a c k e d (AT) g m a i l . c o m , this hacker , literally helped me delete late payments which i incurred as far back as 2014 when i lost my job and was struggling with my finances, blemishes that been lurking on my credit report and two inquiries ,{dispute some for me} increase my credit score with a value of over + 102. he recommended some few steps also that i have been following and have been giving me results i desired. he really did so well i couldn't hold my satisfaction, being the fact that i've been trying to obtain a mortgage loan but all of this were serving as hindrances , not until i met him. now i got my mortgage and now living in my house. i'll say if you are in similar KIND OF situation , you send a message to their email like i said earlier . q u a d h a c k e d {@} g m a i l . c om

cyberferret 8y ago

> the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators Part of this includes the whole concept of rushing a 'knocked together' MVP out there. It all depends on the product. Yeah, if you have an app to share cat pictures on a social network, then who cares if you have a flakey cobbled together app that doesn't upload half the time. The consequences are minimal. If you have an app that is responsible for administering a life saving drug on a periodic basis, then you had better be sure the thing is polished, tested and reliable before even beginning to test it in the market. The whole 'lean' system sausage factory is just that - creating a mass production line of ideas where only less than 1% float to the top. Very often only based on the fact that the creators shouted louder than others who may have had better (or more boring) ideas.

asdguiuiobuibui 8y ago
Or if you're, say, building a system for self-driving cars. This Silicon Valley arrogance and recklessness has killed people. It's not just academic.
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  Don't understand the hang up about this. Self Driving cars were always going to kill people. It's not possible to be 100% safe but even a minute improvement over human drivers would save thousands of lives a year.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    Uber has had a fatal accident with only a few million miles driven when an average human will go more like a hundred million miles per fatality. I don't understand why people insist on believing that they are already more safe than human drivers when the evidence suggests that they are currently much, much less safe.
    - jimbofisher1 8y ago
      I'm sorry where did I imply they were already safer? I think it's obvious they will continue to improve and surpassing human level is not far away.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Nonsense. Uber's self-driving cars currently have something like 30x the fatality rate of an average driver and that is in cherry-picked locations that they chose for testing and with a human driver constantly watching it to take over when it does something wrong. There is no evidence that they are anywhere close to surpassing human drivers.
        jimbofisher1 8y ago
        Given a sample size of 1 I don't think there's much to be discerned form the data at all either way. > There is no evidence that they are anywhere close to surpassing human... Famous last words.
  - im3w1l 8y ago
    And even a slight worsening could be a worthwhile tradeoff for the economic gains it would give us.
Felz 8y ago
What's the alternative? Overfunded waterfall-style development on fewer things nobody wants? The lean startup model seems like it works, even outside of tech. Even yes, in medicine that can kill as a failure mode. Drug development, for example, consists of trying a bunch of plausible things. (And worked until the effective, simple chemical space was exhausted.)
- lainga 8y ago
  ...and moving a very small fraction of those drugs into long FDA trials.
  - 6cd6beb 8y ago
    I've been in a couple of those trials. They make it very clear that the drug has already been tested extensively and also do fairly extensive testing on you to make sure your vitals are within the "normal" range. I got a very clear impression that they're not throwing pills at the wall to see which one sticks. I'm also working at a startup that's had three names and just as many products, funded by a VC who's just going to start another one with most of the same people whether this one works or not. It doesn't matter one bit if this startup fails. The drug was pretty clearly indicated to work by the time a person swallowed a pill. Different worlds.
- filleduchaos 8y ago
  Drug development certainly does not consist of trying a bunch of plausible things on the public (or even on small carefully picked groups of human trial subjects, not until after extensive tests and trials have been exhausted). And thank fuck it doesn't. Besides, it's rather disingenuous to act as though development falls on a binary between "overfunded waterfall-style development" and the current mess at many shops.
  - Felz 8y ago
    My apologies if my comment came off as disingenuous or overly binary. I'd agree you could take minimal MVPs too far. (Also, the phrase "minimal MVP" is RAS syndrome but how would I say it otherwise?) What I haven't seen is "the current mess at many shops", and I'd be interested to hear about your experiences. I've only ever experienced failure by overplanning personally, and the stark divide between progress in things that can be cheaply iterated on and things that are expensive, preplanned disasters seems important to me. This leads me to naturally think that if I wanted to make progress in e.g. medicine I should start by finding out how to make it cheap and iterable, rather than come up with comprehensive, well-funded plans.

rsp1984 8y ago

the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators. Would you mind elaborating on this? What advice concretely are you talking about and what exactly is batshit about it?

s-shellfish 8y ago
I think the point is that while the economics might be sound in terms of anticipated risk, risk management, and expected growth; the 'folklore' that arises to relate that learned experience in a convenient, easily understood way is often only a shadow - a poor construct - of the experience that actually keeps these systems running. Whether that's because 'trade secrets' or 'elevator speeches', whatever the reason, information gets lost, exaggerated, and permuted along the way. So sometimes it can easily become kind of batshit because of how far removed from reality - the actual guiding forces that sustain that economy, are. I don't know if you can point out concrete examples, because for every concrete example there's probably a successful startup out there that followed that model. But the exception doesn't prove the rule in systems that are fundamentally opened, like the relationship between culture (consumer, startup, academia, enterprise) and the economy. That's because those rules (advice) influence the system. You can't simultaneously account for the effect the advice will have on the system while following and dispensing the advice, unless the advice and it's effects on the system are immutable. But that's not how capitalism works.
kabouseng 8y ago
Not OP but I would assume one of the issues would be building and growing a business while having no monetisation strategy, but chasing growth at all costs nevertheless. Or monetisation can in no way sustain the current and future costs of the business. There are many examples, like twitter, whatsapp, homejoy, various food delivery services, springpad... etc etc etc Sometimes the strategy works though, for example Google and Facebook.
- magnetic 8y ago
  It seemed to have worked pretty well for WhatsApp, no?

jasode 8y ago

>, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. Your "not very hard" advice also inadvertently distorts the reality of possible outcomes. Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. Whether an entrepreneur gets some friends with a bootstrap mindset to start a consulting business, publish a new magazine, or open a restaurant, the odds are that all of those will most likely fail. Any business that can provide financial independence has long odds. (I'm not including solo businesses such as freelance web consultant, insurance agent, home inspector/appraiser, solo attorney, etc.) Whether it's a bootstrap-business or VC-business, founders will still proceed forward even if it disagrees with "rational" calculations of successes/failures. It's human nature.

onion2k 8y ago
Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. While that's very true of startups I think there's more to it. A lot of businesses are founded in order to scale up to something that can give the founders a decent exit. If you start a business with the explicit intention of only growing to a point where it's going to give you a good lifestyle you're a lot less likely to fail. You don't need to take the risks necessary to grow. You can focus 100% on the business instead of distractions (for example, raising a round.) You're still more likely to fail than success, but not with the sort of failure rate that startups typically see.
jeffreyrogers 8y ago
> Most bootstrapped businesses fail as well. Depends how you define failure. The statistics I've seen suggest that around half are still in business 5 years after formation.
katzgrau 8y ago
Yeah, but the reasons for failure are different. A startup usually fails because the founders are convinced they can't do whatever they want to do without investors and they never raise any money. OR, they do raise money and eventually run out of it because they never made enough money to support the costs that were enabled by ... the investment. A bootstrapped business is alive as long as the founder is willing to continue trying to make it work. So a bootstrapped business doesn't fail per se — usually the founder fails to make money within the timeframe they'd hoped for and gives up. I didn't start making real money with my business until I was 4 years in. There wasn't some magical day where I got lucky and started making money. The first 4 years was me basically being an idiot and making every mistake possible. It gave me the education I needed to price my product appropriately, position it, and sell it. Some might say I'm a "survivor" but I don't think I am. I'm just determined as hell and didn't give up when I wasn't making any money. I worked freelance contracts and kept the thing going because I knew at the very least I was getting smarter even if I wasn't bringing in money, and eventually the education would probably prove useful or pay me back. Better and cheaper than grad school anyway, right? I sometimes think about the people who are "Masters of Business Administration" on paper and have never actually built or run a business. The people I know who have successfully done it aren't geniuses with a bunch of money and lots of connections. They all just had the same determination to stick with it, adapt, learn, and find their way to what they want. There is definitely some pain and self-doubt involved, but like I originally said, you come out stronger for it.

mherrmann 8y ago

> then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business As someone with a degree from Oxford (however much that may or may not mean) I find it tremendously hard even six years into it.

ttul 8y ago
Here I am, 13 years in. Still hard, and getting harder even though we are bigger.
- goatherders 8y ago
  "The financial challenges remain the same, you just add more '0's to them."
  - ttul 8y ago
    And you can no longer cover payroll on your own credit card...
    - goatherders 8y ago
      Lol. Well played (and been there).
goatherders 8y ago
I mean this in support of your business-building quest, not as a slight: the worst businessman I know is a Professor at the Wharton School of business. Your market, competition, and execution are orders of magnitude more significant than your in-classroom education. Keep pushing, you'll get there!
- mherrmann 8y ago
  No offense taken. I just mentioned my education to give one data point about my background.

goatherders 8y ago

>> If you don't mind being relatively unheard of and only want to make enough money to be independent, then it actually isn't very hard to bootstrap a business. 100% agree agree agree. TechCrunch, tech conferences and forums (including HN) fuel the startup porn aspect of fame. And the spotlighting of a handful of companies make people think that billions of dollars are out there for the taking. You aren't going to be famous and you don't need a billion dollars. Once you accept that your lens on the world comes into a lot more focus. The last time I was in a position to raise money one of my friends said, "you're growing and there is a lot of profit...and you get to decide what to do with all the profit, include putting it in your own pocket? Raising money means you are now on a salary and have a boss. Why would you do that?" He was right and I've never thought about raising money for that project or any other ever again. Most VC founders wait 7+ years for their cash-out moment, if it ever comes at all. Build a profitable business and stop worrying about the adoration of people you don't know. Make the money, keep the money.

ModernMech 8y ago

This is very true. Building on this, entrepreneurs also seem to make the mistake of taking a business idea that may work for something small, and pitching it to a VC. This usually involves taking an otherwise modest pitch and selling it as something that could change everything, forever. I worked for a startup that did this. We took $2M to fund an idea that was going to change everything, but only in the .001% chance of hitting it big. Investors bought that pitch up. Over the course of 2 years we spent that money and tried to position the business to hit it big. In doing so, we forwent plenty of opportunities to grow the business incrementally; any time spent not aiming for the fences was a waste, because the business didn't have a future without a home run success. Taking $2M up front meant we had to meet absurdly high expectations for investors to return that money. Moderate success of the business meant a failure for investors. Even a sustainable business was a failure for investors. The only success story would be a 10x success. In the end, we took a swing at the fences and missed. We had opportunity after opportunity to pursue revenue early, to grow slowly, to take on smaller customers. But we skipped all that because in the very beginning we lit a fuse by taking too much VC money thinking it would give us more freedom, but it chained us and ultimately ruined the company. Because VCs would rather have a ruined company than a 1x success (if VCs encouraged 1x successes, they'd see fewer 10x successes since fewer startups would even try). In startup world, mediocre success meant failure. People don't understand that enough. You could make a useful product that people love, build a great company with great people and talent, attract customers, generate revenue and even profits. You could achieve all the hallmarks of a healthy, successful company and it would still be a failure in the eyes of some VCs.

mbesto 8y ago

> the absolutely batshit advice and business building strategy that comes out of the world of venture capital and tech accelerators If the floor comes out (e.g. capital dries up), then tech founders will find themselves in "the emperor has no clothes" situations. The potential externalities of this are varied: - A younger entrepreneurial business demographic who build initially unprofitable businesses based on venture capital and can no longer start businesses because there's no capital - Entrepreneurs resorting to fraud (see -> Theranos, Hampton Creek, etc) - Mental health issues, broken families, etc for people "crushing it" and realizing they're left with nothing 7 years later (see -> https://twitter.com/dhh/status/869361585613139968 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/869361585613139968 ) - Fatigued investing community who no longer deploy capital because cap tables are screwed up

stevensonbaines 8y ago

are you in a needy situation , seeking the help of a legit credit repair specialist/ethical hacker. there are not many that can do what this man is capable of . i got introduced to this credit specialist with the contact mail q u a d h a c k e d (AT) g m a i l . c o m , this hacker , literally helped me delete late payments which i incurred as far back as 2014 when i lost my job and was struggling with my finances, blemishes that been lurking on my credit report and two inquiries ,{dispute some for me} increase my credit score with a value of over + 102. he recommended some few steps also that i have been following and have been giving me results i desired. he really did so well i couldn't hold my satisfaction, being the fact that i've been trying to obtain a mortgage loan but all of this were serving as hindrances , not until i met him. now i got my mortgage and now living in my house. i'll say if you are in similar KIND OF situation , you send a message to their email like i said earlier . q u a d h a c k e d {@} g m a i l . c om