3 ms·

What do you mean? They all mention it, usually towards the start, and it's definitely the core idea under discussion. In this one, I'd point to the title ("Ext

What do you mean? They all mention it, usually towards the start, and it's definitely the core idea under discussion. In this one, I'd point to the title ("Extend your Runway"), and if you really picked at those nits I might fall back to "Default Alive."

freediver 4y ago
Well among other things, a sustainable business does not ever need to "extend its runway" because it is infinite by definition (sustainable meaning profit > 0) and "default alive" is a mode it operated in since inception. All advice in these articles applies to the other kind of businesses ("makes $10k and spends $100k/month...") that likely got in that position by what in some cases is basically a ponzi scheme of fund raising, which was completely fine until just a few days ago and then they realized it's not going to work forever. This then resulted in a widespread panic and all this advice about "how to survive" and suddenly realizing that you should also "make the product amazing". These should be default rules to live by for any business, is all that I am saying.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Ah, so you think Venture Capital should categorically not exist and everyone should bootstrap. I understand where you are coming from. Here's how to grok VC: first of all, realize that even the VCiest VC understands that VC is a niche, and they'll send you on your way if you walk up to them with a bootstrap opportunity, even if it's a good bootstrap opportunity. This is a site run by VCs as a funnel for the VC scene in a VC town, so you'll hear a lot about VC here -- but bootstrapping definitely has its place. If you listen closely you'll even hear people talk about opportunities being better suited to VC or bootstrapping. Opportunities that can be bootstrapped should be bootstrapped, because then you get to keep more equity. Here's the critical point though: not all businesses can be bootstrapped. What happens if you try to organically grow your way into a new wide-open opportunity in a winner-take-all market? Some other guy raises a boatload of VC, beats you to it, and shuts you out. VC eats bootstrapper lunch. In theory, the returns from these outsize victories are great enough to offset the failures, but as with any kind of investing it really comes down to educated guesswork. It's not a ponzi scheme because on occasion it is wildly successful. It systematically reduces the time required for industry to colonize new technological niches. However, it does fall flat on its face from time to time, because that's what happens when you run instead of walk (or perhaps parkour instead of run).
  - freediver 4y ago
    > Ah, so you think Venture Capital should categorically not exist and everyone should bootstrap. Not at all that extreme, I was just bringing attention to the fact that VC funded startups get most (all?) of the talk of the town, making them almost ubiquitous, where the reality is that they are just one of the ways to start and run a business. In particular, none of these 'advice' posts we've seen lately here on HN and elsewhere seem to acknowledge the existence of 'non raising funds' startups which is basically what I objected to in the original comment.

freediver 4y ago

Well among other things, a sustainable business does not ever need to "extend its runway" because it is infinite by definition (sustainable meaning profit > 0) and "default alive" is a mode it operated in since inception. All advice in these articles applies to the other kind of businesses ("makes $10k and spends $100k/month...") that likely got in that position by what in some cases is basically a ponzi scheme of fund raising, which was completely fine until just a few days ago and then they realized it's not going to work forever. This then resulted in a widespread panic and all this advice about "how to survive" and suddenly realizing that you should also "make the product amazing". These should be default rules to live by for any business, is all that I am saying.

jjoonathan 4y ago
Ah, so you think Venture Capital should categorically not exist and everyone should bootstrap. I understand where you are coming from. Here's how to grok VC: first of all, realize that even the VCiest VC understands that VC is a niche, and they'll send you on your way if you walk up to them with a bootstrap opportunity, even if it's a good bootstrap opportunity. This is a site run by VCs as a funnel for the VC scene in a VC town, so you'll hear a lot about VC here -- but bootstrapping definitely has its place. If you listen closely you'll even hear people talk about opportunities being better suited to VC or bootstrapping. Opportunities that can be bootstrapped should be bootstrapped, because then you get to keep more equity. Here's the critical point though: not all businesses can be bootstrapped. What happens if you try to organically grow your way into a new wide-open opportunity in a winner-take-all market? Some other guy raises a boatload of VC, beats you to it, and shuts you out. VC eats bootstrapper lunch. In theory, the returns from these outsize victories are great enough to offset the failures, but as with any kind of investing it really comes down to educated guesswork. It's not a ponzi scheme because on occasion it is wildly successful. It systematically reduces the time required for industry to colonize new technological niches. However, it does fall flat on its face from time to time, because that's what happens when you run instead of walk (or perhaps parkour instead of run).
- freediver 4y ago
  > Ah, so you think Venture Capital should categorically not exist and everyone should bootstrap. Not at all that extreme, I was just bringing attention to the fact that VC funded startups get most (all?) of the talk of the town, making them almost ubiquitous, where the reality is that they are just one of the ways to start and run a business. In particular, none of these 'advice' posts we've seen lately here on HN and elsewhere seem to acknowledge the existence of 'non raising funds' startups which is basically what I objected to in the original comment.