The story focuses primarily on external factors that could remove choices and control from the founders, but it feels a bit one sided, in that Daniel is externa

The story focuses primarily on external factors that could remove choices and control from the founders, but it feels a bit one sided, in that Daniel is externalizing the factors concerning funding. Hence, I'd like to digress a pit from the story and draw attention to some internal (mostly psychological) reasons to take funding ... or not. Drawing from experiences and observations from investment management and investors behavior (mostly) outside the sphere of start-ups, I can confidently say, there are polar opposite behavior that results from taking/using/managing someone else's money. a) For a fairly large number of people; accepting someone's money brings about accountability and reduces personal recklessness. These individuals usually thrive under situations where they are held accountable and appreciate the benefits of experience, mentoring and someone believing enough to hand them their money. Sure it may reduce some choices, but the perceived value is easily offset by the growth and change is life perspectives. Most people don't quite think this far, but they should. If first-time founders have seen themselves be more accountability when the burden of risk lay upon someone else, then by all means they should find investors who would help them down this path. To reiterate, the key for this group of first-timers is to find the right investors/angels for their start-up, Daniel's situation would likely only play out if they were to hasty to take any money rather than the right money. b) Then there are the inbetweeners, these are the individuals that do not find the value in giving up their choices (however limited the scope) in exchange for the perceived benefits, or lack thereof. Accepting someone else's money may also be viewed as a burden or source of stress and things not working out as intended may be viewed as failure or reason to give up. If they recognize these traits they should be extremely careful when accepting any funding, and this is the group that would most benefit from Daniel's observations. c) On the flip side of the first group are the individuals that are extremely callous when taking additional risks, over spending, living beyond the constraints of their current situation when someone else's takes on the burden of the risk. I don't want to judge, but I would find it rare for these individuals to not take funding. They would mostly be the personalities that seasoned angels and investors recognize or watch out for. Perhaps VCs of the yester-years may have liked them. I personally see them as more dangerous to investors that the removal of choices are to their success. I am sure the psychological profiles are also a good thing to know and understand when choosing co-founders, and that would be a greater concern than taking funding, but I'll leave that for another day or another topic.