2 ms·
One overlooked factor in these numbers is that the founder now has more levers to pull. For example, they are paying $206k in payroll, and in an emergency situa
by KeithBrink 4y ago
One overlooked factor in these numbers is that the founder now has more levers to pull. For example, they are paying $206k in payroll, and in an emergency situation, could let some staff go and take over those functions themselves.
I've experienced the same thing with my bootstrapped startup; I'm not paying myself any more money than I did 3 years ago, but if I need money, I can double or triple my own salary within a month or two.
The reason the founder isn't doing that now is likely exactly the same reason Uber or other VC startups consistently lose money; they are optimizing for growth, not profit/salary.
- password11 4y ago> The reason the founder isn't doing that now is likely exactly the same reason Uber or other VC startups consistently lose money; they are optimizing for growth, not profit/salary. Optimizing for growth is very risky and makes sense to VCs. VCs diversify into dozens of companies. The odds that one company will be a moonshot are pretty good. But as an individual founder you're 100% exposed to the growth/collapse of your one company.