2 ms·

So much to unpack, so I will not just not bother apart from one point that I keep to be discussing with many people who are stuck in a buzzword mode: "I run a c

So much to unpack, so I will not just not bother apart from one point that I keep to be discussing with many people who are stuck in a buzzword mode: "I run a community for small-time entrepreneurs who are satisfied with reliably attainable mediocre success". The bakery around the corner from my house has been around for the past 20 years. It makes a bucketloads of money every day. The guy who runs it is in complaint-mode 24/7. BUT he still runs the place, he still NOT innovates, he still sells good, tasty, average, boring bread. Perhaps Daniel wants that. Good for him. The same for the "community for small-time entrepreneurs". Good for them. But if someone has the next Dropbox-potential idea, you better hand out with this crew here, than that crew there. Because that crew there will settle for mediocre, while this crew here will aim higher.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago
I agree with you, but I also agree with Daniel. Content like this is IMO oriented to two audiences: - Those who think of VC funding for a startup as the "default mode" and haven't considered a "slow burn"/lifestyle business/bootstrap/whatever alternative buzzword approach. - Those who already agree with the indie hacker/no-VC style approach and Daniel's writing appeals to their confirmation bias. It's a feel-good piece for them.
- braza 3y ago
  > Those who already agree with the indie hacker/no-VC style approach and Daniel's writing appeals to their confirmation bias Indeed. Maybe old founders of YC can chime in but I do not think that someone that has that entrepreneurial spirit to have a start-up would gave up to a small-bet approach. If we count all skills/perks/network of being in a YC program (seeing from the outside) it's a very hard sell to this folks. There are several folks that at the same time could not take the BigCo. 9-5 could not take the solopreneurship/bootstrap as well. Personally the idea of small-bets would not work for me due to the nature of my job (low-stress environment, high pay, a job that fits in my lifestyle and transitivity around countries with my set of skills) but I see the point on the approach.
runako 3y ago
> The same for the "community for small-time entrepreneurs". Good for them. But if someone has the next Dropbox-potential idea, you better hand out with this crew here, than that crew there. Because that crew there will settle for mediocre, while this crew here will aim higher. There's a third way. Don't take VC, but hustle and focus on excellence and growth. If you need capital, realize there are other non-dilutive sources. Or that perhaps you can achieve similar results with far less money than a speedy VC-backed company. Think: what if I were not <demographics statistically favored by VCs> and did not have access to VC? How would I grow this business? Think: how would the Mailchimp founders ($12 B exit), or the SAS founders, or the Epic Systems founder have solved this problem? Think: am I even aware that many (most?) multi-millionaire tech founders did not raise VC? Look to non-tech industries for inspiration; VC typically doesn't fund high-growth companies, like Spanx, that are not tech companies. Then get big anyway, on your own terms. The dichotomy between VC or small-time is false.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago

I agree with you, but I also agree with Daniel. Content like this is IMO oriented to two audiences: - Those who think of VC funding for a startup as the "default mode" and haven't considered a "slow burn"/lifestyle business/bootstrap/whatever alternative buzzword approach. - Those who already agree with the indie hacker/no-VC style approach and Daniel's writing appeals to their confirmation bias. It's a feel-good piece for them.

braza 3y ago
> Those who already agree with the indie hacker/no-VC style approach and Daniel's writing appeals to their confirmation bias Indeed. Maybe old founders of YC can chime in but I do not think that someone that has that entrepreneurial spirit to have a start-up would gave up to a small-bet approach. If we count all skills/perks/network of being in a YC program (seeing from the outside) it's a very hard sell to this folks. There are several folks that at the same time could not take the BigCo. 9-5 could not take the solopreneurship/bootstrap as well. Personally the idea of small-bets would not work for me due to the nature of my job (low-stress environment, high pay, a job that fits in my lifestyle and transitivity around countries with my set of skills) but I see the point on the approach.

runako 3y ago

> The same for the "community for small-time entrepreneurs". Good for them. But if someone has the next Dropbox-potential idea, you better hand out with this crew here, than that crew there. Because that crew there will settle for mediocre, while this crew here will aim higher. There's a third way. Don't take VC, but hustle and focus on excellence and growth. If you need capital, realize there are other non-dilutive sources. Or that perhaps you can achieve similar results with far less money than a speedy VC-backed company. Think: what if I were not <demographics statistically favored by VCs> and did not have access to VC? How would I grow this business? Think: how would the Mailchimp founders ($12 B exit), or the SAS founders, or the Epic Systems founder have solved this problem? Think: am I even aware that many (most?) multi-millionaire tech founders did not raise VC? Look to non-tech industries for inspiration; VC typically doesn't fund high-growth companies, like Spanx, that are not tech companies. Then get big anyway, on your own terms. The dichotomy between VC or small-time is false.