4 ms·

It also at the same time is one less successful example of someone finding a way to make millions of dollars without raising any funding. Every time I see some

by soneca 6y ago

It also at the same time is one less successful example of someone finding a way to make millions of dollars without raising any funding. Every time I see someone using Basecamp as inspiration for bootstrappers I perceive it as very dishonest. That said, I think it is a very good thing that there are more options for funding high growth tech startups that do not require a ”go unicorn or go bust” mindset of the VCs. It certainly a great innovation (even if it’s not exactly a new idea) in the startup ecosystem

HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
> Every time I see someone using Basecamp as inspiration for bootstrappers I perceive it as very dishonest How far are you willing to take this? What if he had borrowed money from his grandma? What if they couldn't afford servers AND rent so they stayed with his parents? Or they couldn't get a lease on their own, so a friend co-signed? The reality is that we all accept some form of help with our businesses at one point or another that takes some of our stress away. You'd be searching long and hard to find people who became successful with no form of investment at all. And even if you did, what would that prove?
- soneca 6y ago
  It proves nothing to you, I draw the lines of my perceptions to my own benefit. I believe every bootstrapper has some kind of self-funding. So whenever I see a story of a successful bootstrapper, I assume self-funding, and I don't consider it dishonest in my perception of the story. If the bootstrapper happens to be a millionaire already, and the "self-funding" is in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't consider the inspiration applicable to my own case, but I would probably not call it "dishonest". All of your small-money examples look to me as in this category as both honest and applicable to my case. One of the lines that I draw is that calling "bootstrapper" a company that received, let's say $100,000, from a billionaire in order to help with growth is dishonest in my perception. From the tone of your comment, you seem to have the impression that I am a purist of some sort about the technical definition of "bootstrapper" and that I am policing how other people use it as some sort of crusade. You are wrong. I was sharing the filter that I use when interpreting this kind of story. I create these filters because I am a wanna-be founder myself, and I have decisions to make, decisions that are influenced by what I read about what happened to other people. I have to establish a gross probability of success with each decision. Deciding to pursue funding is one of those decisions. So when I read about bootstrappers I try to filter as honest or dishonest (also along other dimensions, as applicability). So this search of mine of what I consider honest or not would prove nothing to you or to anyone. I don't care. It is not the reason I do it.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    I agree. ‘Indie’ had a distinct meaning that has now been co-opted by marketers and warped and changed by usage. One’s own meaning and usage is still valid, as is talking about variations and change in usage. Linguistic prescriptivism is often misapplied in ways to discourage descriptivist usage of the the same term, ‘indie’ in this case.
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    Basecamp would be close enough to where it is now with or without Bezos’ stake. Assuming they aren’t lying. The most it did was let them get a bit more aggressive on growth vs profit since they had less skin in the game and the PR received from the funding. Which would’ve been big but not that big of a deal back in 06. Is Atlassian not bootstrapped to you either? Or 1Password? They both took money super late into their game or for taking money off the table. i can see saying Atlassian or GitHub aren’t bootstrapped, but things are different these days. In prior years they may have just IPOed.

by soneca 6y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago

> Every time I see someone using Basecamp as inspiration for bootstrappers I perceive it as very dishonest How far are you willing to take this? What if he had borrowed money from his grandma? What if they couldn't afford servers AND rent so they stayed with his parents? Or they couldn't get a lease on their own, so a friend co-signed? The reality is that we all accept some form of help with our businesses at one point or another that takes some of our stress away. You'd be searching long and hard to find people who became successful with no form of investment at all. And even if you did, what would that prove?

soneca 6y ago
It proves nothing to you, I draw the lines of my perceptions to my own benefit. I believe every bootstrapper has some kind of self-funding. So whenever I see a story of a successful bootstrapper, I assume self-funding, and I don't consider it dishonest in my perception of the story. If the bootstrapper happens to be a millionaire already, and the "self-funding" is in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't consider the inspiration applicable to my own case, but I would probably not call it "dishonest". All of your small-money examples look to me as in this category as both honest and applicable to my case. One of the lines that I draw is that calling "bootstrapper" a company that received, let's say $100,000, from a billionaire in order to help with growth is dishonest in my perception. From the tone of your comment, you seem to have the impression that I am a purist of some sort about the technical definition of "bootstrapper" and that I am policing how other people use it as some sort of crusade. You are wrong. I was sharing the filter that I use when interpreting this kind of story. I create these filters because I am a wanna-be founder myself, and I have decisions to make, decisions that are influenced by what I read about what happened to other people. I have to establish a gross probability of success with each decision. Deciding to pursue funding is one of those decisions. So when I read about bootstrappers I try to filter as honest or dishonest (also along other dimensions, as applicability). So this search of mine of what I consider honest or not would prove nothing to you or to anyone. I don't care. It is not the reason I do it.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  I agree. ‘Indie’ had a distinct meaning that has now been co-opted by marketers and warped and changed by usage. One’s own meaning and usage is still valid, as is talking about variations and change in usage. Linguistic prescriptivism is often misapplied in ways to discourage descriptivist usage of the the same term, ‘indie’ in this case.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  Basecamp would be close enough to where it is now with or without Bezos’ stake. Assuming they aren’t lying. The most it did was let them get a bit more aggressive on growth vs profit since they had less skin in the game and the PR received from the funding. Which would’ve been big but not that big of a deal back in 06. Is Atlassian not bootstrapped to you either? Or 1Password? They both took money super late into their game or for taking money off the table. i can see saying Atlassian or GitHub aren’t bootstrapped, but things are different these days. In prior years they may have just IPOed.