I think this is a really poorly written blog post. Not because it was written in a thoughtless manner -- on the contrary, it was written in a very thoughtful ma

I think this is a really poorly written blog post. Not because it was written in a thoughtless manner -- on the contrary, it was written in a very thoughtful manner! But it's not written by an expert. It was written by someone who has never raised VC themselves and doesn't have personal experience with it. And it shows. The reality about raising VC versus not raising VC is never "yes or no" it's "on what terms." During the heady days of 2021, those terms were incredible for founders -- favorable multiples, lax governance, clean sheets, no loss of control. You'd have to be an idiot, or an incapable fundraiser, to not to take that deal because it was free money. And the reason why that money was free was because we were in a ZIRP environment where debt was extremely cheap as well; just not as cheap and unencumbered by equity for many companies. Today, the situation is more varied. If the terms of the deal are not particularly founder favorable, you won't take it unless you really need it. That doesn't say anything about whether you should or should not take VC -- just that the cost of capital has changed. To the author, all I will say is this -- be wary that a VC funded competitor doesn't look at your business model, say "that's a nice business you got there, shame if anything happened to it" and raised a ton of VC to build a competitor, out-execute you at lower margins and take a ton of territory from you, and effectively eat your lunch. There are long-term strategic costs to bootstrapping. There are costs to everything in business.