4 ms·

For the sake of argument, how is this different from self funding? Ramen profitable isn't profitable, and not taking seed is just preventing you from paying yo

• soneca 14y ago
  As i see it, it is self funding. And the "no" is actually a "not yet". As the author puts it, is a problem to seed investors, because now the founders themselves have the money to their own seed. And nothing has changed to VC capital. I don't see it as a "2013 trend", it is something that only depends if the founder have a cash reserve or not. I don't think there were many founders seeking seed capital in the past out of absolute need. Not in the past, not now. Maybe these days we have more people saving money with the clear purpose of self-fund for a year or two. Maybe is anedoctal.
  • nchirls 14y ago
    Yes, the point is that in most cases, at some point these companies will raise institutional VC. But whereas in the past couple years, I've seen founders blindly take seed capital (in some cases very large amounts) because the market offered it, I see founders now thinking more thoughtfully on sizing and whether to take it at all until they can show real growth. Once they can show that, they can make a better and more educated decision to hop on the VC treadmill or not. Mainly the point is that I'm seeing more mature founders question the funding environment and realize some of the negative implications of overfunding at the seed stage...
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]