What a terribly muddled and bipolar article full of unsupported generalizations and platitudes. Author writes -- "Moreover, not raising money from professional

What a terribly muddled and bipolar article full of unsupported generalizations and platitudes. Author writes -- "Moreover, not raising money from professional investors is—in all honesty—a potential red flag. It’s rare for an entrepreneur to run a business and spend millions of dollars without having any outside help." Is there any data to prove this is a red flag? And rare? Nope. Speaking from experience, our bootstrapped firm has closed many enterprise clients without having raised VC. VC may help and be requisite in certain areas, but it certainly is not necessary. Author writes - "Ultimately, while you may score extra points for building a large business despite being bootstrapped, you don’t actually score many points for running a small business if you have avoided venture capital..." What does "winning points" have to do with anything? I suspect he's referring to some sort of ego gratification, but I'm not sure. If you run a business in which you feel you are adding value to customers/the world, growing at the rate you want, are in control, working with people you like and are financially where you want to be, I'm not sure what "points" have to do with anything. Author writes -- "When it’s said and done, you can own 100% of a lemonade stand or 1% of Coca-Cola." This is a false dichotomy, i.e., bootstrapped companies are "lemonade stands" and VC backed companies are Coca-Cola. VC backing is no guarantee of success. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong or overrated about either path. Whichever is the right way to get you to where you want is what you should do. Disclosure: I run a bootstrapped firm. One of our firm's primary customer groups is VCs.