4 ms·

I think the problem is even though it sounds like a lot, $1.5m/year is not really some kind of "Tony Stark"-like riches. Yes, they might be able to temporarily

I think the problem is even though it sounds like a lot, $1.5m/year is not really some kind of "Tony Stark"-like riches. Yes, they might be able to temporarily stop working and live off savings, but probably not for that long. And furthermore, $1.5m, which is really $750k after taxes, doesnt really pay a lot of salaries. Hard to have an engineering division on $750k. Also, I know plenty of people who are doing exactly what you are saying. The reality though is bootstrapping a startup is unlikely to make it more of a success anyways. The VC game picks winners in both senses - that they fund 'winners' and that they create winners by their own influence. So a bootstrapped startup cannot ignore the VC realm regardless, especially once it is time to come to market. The era of a silent genius sitting in a garage building durable software for the ages is a huge myth alas.

michaelochurch 11y ago
The VC game picks winners in both senses - that they fund 'winners' and that they create winners by their own influence. It's about 5% the first and 95% the second, sadly. The well-connected VCs pretty much know what the outcomes and the valuations are going to be in advance. The less connected ones get burned by adverse selection and lose money. So a bootstrapped startup cannot ignore the VC realm regardless, especially once it is time to come to market. That I'm not as sure about. You just have to bootstrap into something that VCs aren't likely to be interested in, and get enough of an early lead and enough good will that they can't just make a competitor out of nothing should their interests change. It's quite possible, as far as I've seen. Bootstrapping is far harder than it should be (in part, because the American middle class is dying and no one has any fucking money) but I don't think that the VCs are the cause of that.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  >It's about 5% the first and 95% the second, sadly. I do agree and believe most VCs successes to be self-fulfilling prophecies.
- ryanobjc 11y ago
  not sure why you've been downboated, perhaps people disagree on the numbers, but the basic fact is, in my opinion, not disputable. VCs dont just pick winners, they CREATE winners. How much of an effect this is debatable but it certainly is not a small effect.

michaelochurch 11y ago

The VC game picks winners in both senses - that they fund 'winners' and that they create winners by their own influence. It's about 5% the first and 95% the second, sadly. The well-connected VCs pretty much know what the outcomes and the valuations are going to be in advance. The less connected ones get burned by adverse selection and lose money. So a bootstrapped startup cannot ignore the VC realm regardless, especially once it is time to come to market. That I'm not as sure about. You just have to bootstrap into something that VCs aren't likely to be interested in, and get enough of an early lead and enough good will that they can't just make a competitor out of nothing should their interests change. It's quite possible, as far as I've seen. Bootstrapping is far harder than it should be (in part, because the American middle class is dying and no one has any fucking money) but I don't think that the VCs are the cause of that.

vdaniuk 11y ago
>It's about 5% the first and 95% the second, sadly. I do agree and believe most VCs successes to be self-fulfilling prophecies.
ryanobjc 11y ago
not sure why you've been downboated, perhaps people disagree on the numbers, but the basic fact is, in my opinion, not disputable. VCs dont just pick winners, they CREATE winners. How much of an effect this is debatable but it certainly is not a small effect.