I wonder about this too. The tweetstorm linked here only talks about technology, comparing Patreon to YouTube. Since Patreon handles payments, I can imagine the

I wonder about this too. The tweetstorm linked here only talks about technology, comparing Patreon to YouTube. Since Patreon handles payments, I can imagine their load on customer support, anti-fraud, abusive behavior etc is significantly higher than that of YouTube. The fact that the OP did not address this belies a simplistic view about what it's like to run a business (that and the fact that he thinks the Patreon founders could've gotten a bank loan). At the same time, $60M? How can a platform like Patreon even begin to spend that much money? On what? I didn't understand it when Medium raised so much and I didn't understand it when Patreon did. Basically my gist is that while this is a fun rant to read against getting VC funding, there's also a middle ground: raise reasonable amounts of VC funding. This might not always fit VC incentives perfectly, after all their business model depends on funding dozens of companies hoping that one is the next Facebook, but in the end it's your call. And hey, if you grow half speed you'll just be the next Facebook 5 years later, no man overboard. VCs can usually veto new sources of funding but if they can force you to raise followon rounds then you've been negotiating wrong.