3 ms·
I completely disagree with the Grandparent post overall but the advantage of major blowup is that you have a clear clean end and can try something else. If you
by josephlord 14y ago
I completely disagree with the Grandparent post overall but the advantage of major blowup is that you have a clear clean end and can try something else. If you get stuck in something you don't yet see as successful but it hasn't completely failed you might keep trying when the company can never achieve your aims.
With outside investors you may be contractually stuck in all sorts of ways too.
- PakG1 14y agoDoesn't it depend on what your aims are, and who are the most important stakeholders (i.e. whether investors are involved, etc)? I'm still not seeing it. I think the definition posted there is self-assuming.
- josephlord 14y agoI agree, I specifically said "you get stuck in something you don't yet see as successful" so it only really applies when you are unhappy with the current outcome (which may be modestly profitable). It was not meant as a definition but an example of a possible case where bankruptcy is beneficial. I was just trying to express a situation where massive failure is worse than modest ongoing profitability (zombie company) as the great-grandparent comment suggested was always the case for start ups. If you look at my other posts in the original thread I disagree strongly with the great-grandparent about the definition of success but I can understand at least the possibility of circumstances when full blowup is better than drifting along.