4 ms·

> Autonomy is the need to have control [...] and not be dictated to by someone or something else When you take VC, you've just hired yourself a board full of b

> Autonomy is the need to have control [...] and not be dictated to by someone or something else When you take VC, you've just hired yourself a board full of bosses. > you’re often left at the whims of your customer base When does that ever stop being true?

fredrivett 8y ago
> When you take VC, you've just hired yourself a board full of bosses. Agree taking funding brings back an element of having a boss again Alan. It's certainly a trade-off of the VC route, and one of the main reasons I haven't taken funding before. That said, I still think you get a good amount of autonomy by (co-)founding a startup, as you're often free to execute how you choose, but with the agreement that you'll pursue a path that can give an outsized return for your investors. Investors rarely want to dictate what and how you do things, in my experience. > When does that ever stop being true? Again I agree it doesn't, but it's something many bootstrappers don't quite understand when starting out (I didn't way back when), and I think is a point worth noting. --- Happy to make edits if there's ways I can clarify this better. Gotta ship something before EOP today but will revisit the article tonight.
- max76 8y ago
  > Investors rarely want to dictate what and how you do things, in my experience. West coast capital is significantly less interested in the what and how than other sources of capital in my experience.
  - fredrivett 8y ago
    Definitely agree the west coast has it's own culture that's more open to risky ideas and the like.
  - alangibson 8y ago
    > significantly less interested in the what and how I'm a long way from the West Coast so correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've always had the impression that they are very interested in the who even if not so much in the what and how. Stories of founders of profitable businesses being replaced for less-than-hyper growth abound.
    - max76 8y ago
      I agree with everything you are saying.
- confiscate 8y ago
  > is a point worth noting. What is your point again? Either way, you will always be at the whims of your customer. So why is that a disadvantage when bootstrapping?
  - fredrivett 8y ago
    That specific point was that people often start a business because they want the freedom of not having a boss, but in many ways you always have someone you're serving, be it a boss or a customer. The wider point was: both bootstrapping and VC funding are good options, depending on your specific circumstances and goals at the time. One isn't objectively better than the other.
codingdave 8y ago
This nails the heart of the problem - every company needs to fulfill the needs of their customers, their staff, and themselves to continue to operate successfully. But VCs add additional needs of speed and returns. If your bootstrapping is failing financially, or not meeting your own needs (as described in the article), VCs are a valid choice to kick it back up to try to succeed. Better that than shutting down. But the anti-VC perspective is talking about a different scenario: If your bootstrap is working, they would argue not to take on VC just to speed it up or meet some cultural expectation of a funding milestone. Which ultimately sums up the article for me - their particular bootstrapping wasn't working for them, so they switched to the VC route.
- fredrivett 8y ago
  Appreciate your thoughts here Dave, agree with what you say. A quick point of clarification on my situation (author of the post), I didn't take a failing bootstrapped company and get it funding. I stepped away entirely from the bootstrapped work I was doing, for personal reasons (to focus on things other than working all the time), and then an entirely separate opportunity came up to start a startup with funding, which I took because of the autonomy (mostly self-directed work), mastery (learning a tonne in a role I've never done before, alongside super smart people) and purpose (creating a company culture that isn't "crush it" startup bro style + attempting to help the news industry adjust to today's culture). Hope that makes sense, just wanted to clarify that.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

fredrivett 8y ago

> When you take VC, you've just hired yourself a board full of bosses. Agree taking funding brings back an element of having a boss again Alan. It's certainly a trade-off of the VC route, and one of the main reasons I haven't taken funding before. That said, I still think you get a good amount of autonomy by (co-)founding a startup, as you're often free to execute how you choose, but with the agreement that you'll pursue a path that can give an outsized return for your investors. Investors rarely want to dictate what and how you do things, in my experience. > When does that ever stop being true? Again I agree it doesn't, but it's something many bootstrappers don't quite understand when starting out (I didn't way back when), and I think is a point worth noting. --- Happy to make edits if there's ways I can clarify this better. Gotta ship something before EOP today but will revisit the article tonight.

max76 8y ago
> Investors rarely want to dictate what and how you do things, in my experience. West coast capital is significantly less interested in the what and how than other sources of capital in my experience.
- fredrivett 8y ago
  Definitely agree the west coast has it's own culture that's more open to risky ideas and the like.
- alangibson 8y ago
  > significantly less interested in the what and how I'm a long way from the West Coast so correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've always had the impression that they are very interested in the who even if not so much in the what and how. Stories of founders of profitable businesses being replaced for less-than-hyper growth abound.
  - max76 8y ago
    I agree with everything you are saying.
confiscate 8y ago
> is a point worth noting. What is your point again? Either way, you will always be at the whims of your customer. So why is that a disadvantage when bootstrapping?
- fredrivett 8y ago
  That specific point was that people often start a business because they want the freedom of not having a boss, but in many ways you always have someone you're serving, be it a boss or a customer. The wider point was: both bootstrapping and VC funding are good options, depending on your specific circumstances and goals at the time. One isn't objectively better than the other.

codingdave 8y ago

This nails the heart of the problem - every company needs to fulfill the needs of their customers, their staff, and themselves to continue to operate successfully. But VCs add additional needs of speed and returns. If your bootstrapping is failing financially, or not meeting your own needs (as described in the article), VCs are a valid choice to kick it back up to try to succeed. Better that than shutting down. But the anti-VC perspective is talking about a different scenario: If your bootstrap is working, they would argue not to take on VC just to speed it up or meet some cultural expectation of a funding milestone. Which ultimately sums up the article for me - their particular bootstrapping wasn't working for them, so they switched to the VC route.

fredrivett 8y ago
Appreciate your thoughts here Dave, agree with what you say. A quick point of clarification on my situation (author of the post), I didn't take a failing bootstrapped company and get it funding. I stepped away entirely from the bootstrapped work I was doing, for personal reasons (to focus on things other than working all the time), and then an entirely separate opportunity came up to start a startup with funding, which I took because of the autonomy (mostly self-directed work), mastery (learning a tonne in a role I've never done before, alongside super smart people) and purpose (creating a company culture that isn't "crush it" startup bro style + attempting to help the news industry adjust to today's culture). Hope that makes sense, just wanted to clarify that.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]