When the Series A check clears, most startups send out a bragging press release, the equivalent of flashing your grill. The VC backing is supposed to mean that the company has experienced hands in its corner. That it’s financially solid. A shoe-in for a puff profile piece in a magazine. Eligible for lunch conversation in Silicon Valley.
But if customers actually think about what a venture capital injection entails, it’s not all California Love. The company’s cash concerns might have (temporarily) vanished, but they’re replaced with a new list of problems. As a user you might be looking at any one of the following:
1. The Pivot
Sure, the product as described today sounds great, but if that hockey-stick growth pattern doesn’t emerge in six months, the product you wasted your time and money on might quickly turn into something else entirely.
2. The Talent Acquisition
Big companies like Google love to buy small bands of developers their VC friends tell them about (the risk easily triples if said band comes with Stanford or MIT pedigree). When the developers behind the app are acquired for their “talent”, you can expect a “sunset” to follow soon thereafter. That combination is the perfect euphemism for fuck the app and fuck the users.
3. The Runway
They don’t call it venture capital because you’re supposed to put it back in the bank. No, fool, that green gots to get spent. The quicker the better. So while $10 million dollars sounds like a lot, it might only just buy a company 12 months of runway. You know, once the swanky office in San Francisco has been decorated and the 100 programmer rockstars, designer ninjas, and bizdev suits have been bought.
4. The Pressure Cooker
Once a company takes millions of dollars of other people’s money, they’re instantly under extreme pressure to perform LIKE A TIGER. This kind of pressure can easily lead otherwise decent people to do indecent things with your data, your privacy, or anything else you hold dear. Because the scoreboard has already been set: winning means blowing it out of the park. And hey, sometimes a playa gots to cheat a little to make the magic sparkle, if you know what I’m saying.
5. The Acquisition Graveyard
If the product is strong enough to prevent a talent acquisition, you earn a few more years of fun and games before the product acquisition is likely to happen. With great fanfare some big company will announce what awesome synergies are in store now that the youngsters have “access to all the resources they need to take it to the next level”. The founders will spend two years on “integration” with the acquiring company’s legacy systems, and then – wait for it – their golden earn-out handcuffs will unlock and they’ll be long gone, along with any chance of the product ever getting better.
Of course, every now and then the clock that’s stopped tells the proper time. The fantastical success story somehow ends up being enough to swallow a hundred bad ones, so the crowd still cheers. See, world, we were there when this wee little lad got his first series A round and just look at him now!
Don’t fall for it. Given the odds involved, if you’re a user, or worse yet, a customer of a product, and the company behind it announces venture funding, the proper response is aahhhh, shiiiiiit.
Drew Pickard
on 10 Feb 12they’re instantly under extreme pressure to perform LIKE A TIGER
Isn’t it worse than that? Isn’t it that they’re under extreme pressure to LOOK LIKE they’re performing like a Tiger? Which leads to more press releases, talking, interviews, blah blah blah instead of working on making a Good Product™
Dave Christiansen
on 10 Feb 12Hey David, Would you make a distinction between startups that are VC funded and startups that are crowdsource funded, ie. kickstarter, localstake, etc?
Thanks!
Dave
Eric Anderson
on 10 Feb 12I was wondering how this applies to investing in your own product. Basecamp was coded in a few hours/week over a few month, launched and ran on a single server for quite a while.
Basecamp Next has been a year in development with several developer, designers and system admins putting probably a lot more than a few hours a week into it. The hardware for this un-launched product is already quite a beast.
With Basecamp you bootstrapped it and grew organically. With Basecamp Next you basically went the venture capital route with your own money. Does this put many of the same pressures on Basecamp Next that is on VC products? Or since the VC money comes from an internal source is it a different thing completely and cannot be compared? Would love to hear what struggles and challenges you have encountered by not being able to grow a product organically like you did your first few.
Kevin
on 10 Feb 12Since the failure rate is high either way, bootstrapping into personal bankruptcy sounds less fun than spending VC money…
If the product is good and there’s a viable market, both bootstrapping and VC funding can work, its highly dependent on circumstances.
DHH
on 10 Feb 12Eric, Basecamp Next is not exposed to any of the five risks I outline above. It’s just as bootstrapped as the original Basecamp was via internal funding (back then it was via consulting, now it’s via another product). I don’t think there’s anything meaningful to be derived from the comparison here.
David Andersen
on 10 Feb 12@Kevin,
I’m quite sure walking across the Pacific can work too but the questions are: what’s the probability and what are the costs?
CH
on 10 Feb 12@DHH
I’m trying to understand the point of the post.
Would below be a good one line summary?
TL;DR; If you take money from someone, expect to repay it soon.
Also, how does this post relate to your VC investment by Jeff Bezos?
George
on 10 Feb 12I think there is a difference in the consumer space versus the enterprise space when it comes to capital infusion that needs differentiating.
Most of the consumer space stuff requires several years of building a base of users – to do that you really need to raise capital in some way, shape or form.
For the enterprise, if you can get to a sellable (not minimum viable) product, you can go the Basecamp route.
Either way, both suffer from the acquisition graveyard problem. I still cringe from the news that Yahoo! bought delicious and flickr, and Intuit buying Mint.
Good post.
DHH
on 10 Feb 12CH, I think that post smells like grills to me. Thankfully the Bezos deal had none of the traditional VC terms and didn’t expose of to any of the five risks outlined in this article.
Sure, you could summarize it like that. You know, like you could summarize Lord of the Rings as “beware shiny rings”.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@CH I’m reading this post as David trying to stand up for the products (and the product’s customers) that are always second class citizens when venture-capital gets involved.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@DHH
Since Bezos gave you a loan, and you have required dividend payments as indicated, wouldn’t you infact have all of the same 5 risks outline above … and frankly even more pressure given you have pre-defined payment schedule to meet for Bezos (much more like a bank loan where you have true financial liability as opposed to VC money where you have zero liability to the VC firm)?
MA
on 10 Feb 12@CH sounds like you missed the entire point of the post I’m afraid.
Here’s a quick summary that might help you understand:
“Taking VC money solves a (temporary) cash problem while creating a host of other problems that create the wrong kind of incentives that are generally counter to building a great company.”
This is so obviously and intuitively true, that I’m kind of surprised anyone could miss the point. The proof is in the percentage of successful companies that raised money from investors who owned their own destiny and were in full control of all major decisions and how fast they grew throughout their lifetime (do the research). Oftentimes it was a result of controlling the board, others a result of strong founders who had to fight the board. (My favorite story? Larry and Sergey clashed with their board and were almost fired because their board wanted a more “traditional” CEO.” Imagine how Google or Facebook would have turned out if they were run by investors. I guarantee you they would have been sold off LONG before they went public.).
A simple way to avoid all of this headache? Build a great product, charge for it, and start making bank from day 1 so the only person you need to rely on is yourself and your team.
Also not all investments are created equal. Jeff Bezos’ investment likely gives him a tiny percentage of the company, with no final say on really any decisions at all. He just wants a little action on a company being built by some guys he really respects. It doesn’t add any of the additional burdens outlined in the post with regards to hightened expectations, a need to spend the cash, short-term thinking and runway, etc. They are free to run the company exactly as before. Traditional Series A? Much different story. Read post again for full detail or see my simplified summary above.
@DHH great post.
Kevin
on 10 Feb 12@David
I just think it’s a way oversimplified way of looking at things. Lots and lots of companies fail, and it has nothing to do with where they got their funding from. If some app dies after VC funding, it seems just as likely to me (without any data being provided in this post) that it was a shitty app with too small a user base and not enough money to be made to build a sustainable business.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@CH As far as I know, dividends are normally paid by stock (equity), not bonds (debt).
MA
on 10 Feb 12@CH again you’re missing the point. It’s not about financial liability, it’s about (the wrong kind of) expectations and incentives that run counter to building a company.
When you take loan from the bank all they care about it that you have enough cash flow to make the payments. Unlike an investor, they don’t sit on your board and tell you how to run your company or how fast to grow.
That’s why these instruments are more suitable for later stage companies like 37 Signals, which have enough cash flow to raise debt or make dividend payments on preferred stock (which btw on their own carry less ownership than traditional common stock unless they’re convertible). Your argument really has nothing to do with the post or with Series A rounds.
Kevin
on 10 Feb 12Moreover, all of this is hogwash unless you’re talking about web startups. You could never have made Intel what it is today w/o VC funding.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@condor
Wrong.
“Dividends are usually paid in the form of cash”.
When have you ever heard of a company making a dividend payment in the form of stock?
condor
on 10 Feb 12@Kevin How about Ford? The Ford Motor Company was launched in a converted factory in 1903 with $28,000 in cash from twelve investors.
VC != private investors
Keep in mind the VC’s money isn’t their money, they have LPs that also want a return and have a pretty short lock up period, after which they can pull their money. VCs have a direct incentive to generate a specific return (that they’ve already marketed/promised) in a predetermined period of time. That’s a lot of pressure that gets directly concentrated on the ‘investments’ (companies).
I don’t think David is saying investors are bad, its the peculiar brand of VC investor with their incentives.
Kevin
on 10 Feb 12@CH
Royal Dutch Shell allows shareholders to receive dividends in either cash or shares:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor/dividend_information/scrip/
Kevin
on 10 Feb 12@condor
Yea, but in 2010 $, that’s $670,585
Seed money my arse :)
Anonymous Coward
on 10 Feb 12@Kevin
This option is only provided by Shell because the are a public company, so converting those shares back to cash is easy.
It’s extremely difficult to convert shares in to cash in a private company (e.g. 37signals).
condor
on 10 Feb 12@CH we’re talking about 2 different things. You were implying that because 37s is paying dividends they must have taken a loan from Bezos.
I’m saying that a loan doesn’t pay dividends, but a stock investment does.
So that’s why I said ” As far as I know, dividends are normally paid by stock (equity), not bonds (debt)” meaning that no, 37s didn’t take a loan from Bezos, they most likely sold him actual stock, and they are paying divedends on that stock.
Also as the wikipedia entry you linked to says in the first line: “Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members.”
My point: 37S didn’t take a loan from Bezos (as you claim), they sold Bezos stock.
Hope that makes sense.
Anonymous Coward
on 10 Feb 12When have you ever heard of a company making a dividend payment in the form of stock?
DRIPs. Very common.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@CH . . . and to finish up my logic, you make the assumption that there’s a “pre-defined payment schedule”. We’re all making a lot of assumptions here, but assuming 37S sold Bezos regular shares (not preferred etc.) there doesn’t have to be any pre-defined obligated dividends. It could be just as easy as taking net income and paying out the equity owners a dividend based on % of owned shares. It turns out there’s surprisingly quite a lot businesses that have been doing this form of investor payout fairly successfully for literally hundreds of years, all over the world.
Brook Riggio
on 10 Feb 12Help keep track of what kind of death these startups die:
Startup Graveyard: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkeFlMexgPvddDZfT251ODFOWVF1MTE0dzN2dGtGZVE
Jimmy Moncrief
on 10 Feb 12David
I have a tremendous amount of respect for all of you guys at 37 signals.
How do you know so much about venture capitalists considering you have never taken money from them?
Additionally, is it wrong to throw them all in this bucket?
FooBar
on 10 Feb 12I don’t understand what you are griping about. That is the nature of Venture Capital. They are in it to make money.
It is true that the venture capital asset class has in the past 10 years under performed the market in terms of returns. If you look at the leading firms (KCPB, Sequoia etc) they greatly over perform the market. The crap VC’s are the ones that generally invest in these small app companies. And for them they probably make 1.3x or 1.5x their investment at best. Don’t confuse Venture Capital (the asset class) with crappy VC’s.
The fact is VC’s don’t give a shit about making a 2 million a year revenue company. It doesn’t make any sense and if that is what you are aiming for don’t get VC investment. Simple as that. They would rather liquidate your assets than keep the company running if they see that this thing is going to at best get them 2x or 1x return.
VC exists as an asset class for companies like Pacific Biosystems, Genentech, Tesla etc. Sometimes consumer internet companies have the growth potential and can use VC but only if they can reach SCALE and revenue in the 25-30 million per year mark. If not it is better off for the VC to liquidate or sell. Problem with social companies is even if they make $25mil a year they can’t go public so there isn’t really an liquidity there and they usually die a slow crappy death.
CH
on 10 Feb 12To follow-up on Jimmy Moncrief point, I’m curious to know how many $100M+/year technology company made it without VC assistance.
Just to name a few, below are all company who had VC backing:
- Apple
- Atlassian
- Cisco
- Dropbox
- Facebook
- Google
- Jive
- Microsoft
- Oracle
devrim
on 10 Feb 12Companies succeed or fail regardless of VC funding. VC funding accelerates the process. Nothing magic. And it’s a good thing overall not a bad one (compare countries that have VC funding culture vs others) picture will look clearer.
David is right saying “it’s not magic”, but not right saying “it’s a curse”. Silicon Valley model is a model of success that every other country dream of.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@CH could it be possible that all those companies that took venture money ‘made it’ in spite of taking venture money. Meaning that they would’ve made it whether it was sequoia investing in them or some other independent investor or just the founders slow going it over a longer period of time. I haven’t seen anything to show a direct causal relationship between taking vc money and making it big time.
Scott
on 10 Feb 12The point of this post not about VC being inherently bad (though it may be).
No, instead it’s that when a big announcement comes out about a company getting VC funding there is no reason that you, as a customer of that company, should feel a need to celebrate.
A VC press release means nothing to you as a customer and in fact probably indicates that disruptive changes to your use of the offering are soon to arrive.
Anonymous Coward
on 10 Feb 12I think an important point of the post here is about the ‘type’ of money VCs bring – one with lots of strings attached. In many cases customers often become only a means to and someone else’s end rather than the true ‘investors’ or partners in your business.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@condor
That’s exactly my question, who has “made it” without VC money? I’m not saying it hasn’t happened. I’m genuinely curious who has? (examples please)
As a reminder, my original question was: “To follow-up on Jimmy Moncrief point, I’m curious to know how many $100M+/year technology company made it without VC assistance.”
Joe
on 10 Feb 12CH: David is addressing this to customers. Is $100M+/year your minimum threshold before you will become a customer of a company, or in what way does the $100M+/year relate to this?
CH
on 10 Feb 12@AC
Is that a bad thing?
Seriously, not meaning to troll but the legendary business guru Peter Drucker said it best: “The Purpose of a Business is to Create a Customer”
Scott Watermasysk
on 10 Feb 12We wrote about something similar the other day, “Do you sell to VCs or customers?” – http://blog.kickofflabs.com/do-you-sell-to-vcs-or-customers
Too many entrepreneurs are missing the opportunity to build something lasting because they are chasing the hype machine/life style.
Ryan
on 10 Feb 12A few people have asked “Who has made it without VC?”
Check out our Bootstrapped, Profitable and Proud site for a collection of examples.
Bursky
on 10 Feb 12It’s funny how 37s preaches one thing and then does the complete opposite.
Raise money from Jeff Bezos (Amazon), tell people taking investments is toxic.
There’s no doubt a company can be built without investment. You just didn’t do it. Stop acting like you bootstrapped it.
james
on 10 Feb 12There are no black and white issues in building a business. Bootstrapping vs VC isn’t a battle over which is better. They both have risks and rewards. I and most people can appreciate you built a nice product and a great business around it and intend to run it for life. Great. Other businesses are created and grow differently. Also great.
Please reflect on the tenor of your thought process and the conclusions you hold dear.
To be frank… you seem angry all the time, which worries me about YOUR product and the future of using it.
GeeIWonder
on 10 Feb 12@james
I don’t think it’s anger. It’s a whole ‘doth protest too much’ kind of thing of trying to stake out a position that’s groundbreaking or interesting. Points stated equivocally with no honest room for consideration. This may not be the man, but certainly it seems to be the opinions stated in forums such as this.
A lot of the stuff is one step removed from the weird guy waving his arms at the end of the bar at your local.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@Ryan
The exact question is “Who has made it BIG ($100M+) without VC?”
That site only lists companies who are $1M+ / year. Huge difference.
Scott
on 10 Feb 12I seriously can’t believe that there are so many people who think that VC backing is a good sign for customers. Even VCs will tell you that if 2/10 work out well then it’s a great year.
So I’m supposed to sign up with a service or product which has a one-or-two out of ten chance of sticking around (not to even mention sticking around without changing their focus – “e.g. pivoting”)? No thanks.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@bursky I’m only responding because I’ve already tied myself to this post and can’t seem to let go . . .
I think the folks at 37S have said they took an investment from Bezos after they had already ‘bootstrapped’ the business. The implication was that Bezos’s money was not used to fund the business operations but to get some extra cash for the owners personally and to get access to Bezos specifically.
The VC money David is talking about in this post would be cash used to actually build the business, this would make it different than the investment 37S took from Bezos.
condor
on 10 Feb 12@james and @GeeIWonder I think it is anger! . . . its a righteous anger based on recent history replaying itself . . . that products and customers become second-class citizens when Venture funding comes in the door. And that hurts all of us as people. We should all want better tools that we can count on. It’s anger that some of the brightest minds of our generation are being misled about how businesses and products should serve people; and that’s warping the value’s of an entire crop of future business leaders.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@Ryan
I see on your listing that BrainTree is “Bootstrapped, Profitable and Proud”.
You must have missed that Braintree raised $34 million in VC money
As did BigCommerce, who received $15M in VC money
Might want to remove them from your Bootstrapped, Profitable & Proud web site.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@Ryan
Also, FlightAware was “founded in March of 2005 with an initial angel investment round”
Not sure why they were ever on the Bootstrapped, Profitable & Proud web site.
Joe
on 10 Feb 12CH: Read up on the differences between angel investors and venture capitol funds; particularly around differences in funding sources, active management and control, and expectations of return.
CH
on 10 Feb 12@Joe
37signals removed Intellum from their Bootstrapped list explicitly because they raised angel money.
Blues4Free
on 10 Feb 12Yawn… ok, I think I am getting tired of these regurgitated articles.
Yes, I get it, you don’t like VCs and quite frankly I 100% agree with you. But, this is getting to be like a comedian who keeps going to the same well for material after it is no longer funny.
Don’t you guys have any new material to write about?
CH
on 10 Feb 12Just to add to Blues4Free comment that:
A simple Google search restricted to the domain of 37signals.com/svn (blog), indicates that there are over 3,180 BLOG POST about VC.
That’s crazy.
Blues4Free is definitely right on this VC thing. 37signals, PLEASE STOP GOING TO THE WELL on this topic.
We get it, you don’t like VCs.
Fast & Furious
on 10 Feb 12When you say “Stanford or MIT pedigree”. Are you implying they are ‘dogs’?
Hendrik
on 10 Feb 12I agree and basically think the same way, but: Does anybody have actual data on this? Everybody talks about 1:10, 1:20 success rates for VCs and the pressure they have (and will obviously push down to the companies they invested in).
There’s also talk that only 1 of 10 VCs actually makes money in the long run or the famous “only one in five startups does survive the first x years”.
But that’s all “I heard…” “They say…”. I guess there isn’t any public data collection or something like that. But I’d be interested in any data that is a bit more reliable than “Well, that’s just how VC investment/startup success rates are”.
Josh Rehman
on 10 Feb 12Investment means that you’ve been vetted by the land-owning class or their proxies (the VCs). That is a legit upvote, and in this culture at this time it is worth bragging about. Of your “risks”, only 2, 4 and 5 are risks triggered by investment:
1. The pivot is not a real risk – market adoption is a problem independent of investment. 2. Talent acquisition is a direct result of an increase in reputation. 3. The runway is the same as risk 4, and redundant 4. The pressure cooker is a result of new players assuming new risk. 5. The graveyard risk is a direct result of reputation.
Of these, only risk 4, the pressure cooker, is not caused by an improved reputation.
The interesting thing here is that our business culture (the people who hire people and buy companies) apparently need a vetting process for new companies, some sort of serious stamp of approval that says, “This venture is not a joke” before they become tempting, and VCs fulfill this role. It’s a sad irony that the selfsame money that could kick a product and business to the next level also exposes a company to certain risks. Such is life.
Pete
on 10 Feb 12David
You are starting to sound like a crotchety old man thats become stubborn, repetitive and blinkered in his old age. Change the record.
You should blog about your porsche racing car you drive at weekends, how fast it goes and how exhilarating it is to drive. Far more interesting!!
Raj Shah
on 11 Feb 12If you’re having’ Perl problems, I feel bad for you, son! I got 99 problems, but a script ain’t one.
CH
on 11 Feb 12@Pete
If you want to get your pantsy wet by reading about DDH racing career, that can be done at 37racing.com
David Andersen
on 11 Feb 12@Kevin,
I don’t think the argument is ‘VC companies almost always fail but non-VC’s almost always succeed, so don’t do it’; I think the argument is ‘you probably don’t need VC money and if you take it, your road is going to be considerably harder’. Naturally there are always exceptions, but who knows this ahead of time? And how often do these exceptions occur? Probably not that often. And really, to all of this advice from 37s, if the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise shop somewhere else. No one is making you take this advice.
Also, someone asked who else has been successful w/o VC? I’m willing to bet a high percentage of the F500, for starters.
Chris
on 11 Feb 12http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/bezos_expeditions_invests_in_37signals.php
Jerry Hegarty
on 11 Feb 12@DHH – Love your perspective, because it is so much like ours!! We’re working to make sure our bootstrapped software company (www.netcommissions.com) keeps crushing it a la 37signals.
Tulsind Tak
edward "swarovski" james
on 11 Feb 12Ethics is a tough challenge once large amounts of money get involved. The multiple of 10, 20, 50 times earning means you must keep raising the bar on profits to keep your value. You can have the same profit but if the growth doesn’t meet expectation your PE multiple will fall and the stock value falls big time. Nothing changed about your business but suddenly you lost 20-50 percent of your company’s value. Just ask Netflix how this feels. “Money makes you do things you don’t want to do” think this is a quote from original “Wall Street” movie.
Thanks Swarovski
Dobes
on 12 Feb 12Creating new product lines like Basecamp Next using cash savings is very different from VC funding because it does not introduce new people with different values, mission, and vision than the current leadership. Preserving the core ideology of a company is more difficult when you bring in new people and money “at the top”. It is better to find internal money and leadership if at all possible.
Steve
on 12 Feb 12I really don’t understand how so many people completely miss the point every time DHH posts about these things.
Of course he’s only talking about his business circumstance, and his business field. Any conclusion that his advice can or should be applied to other business fields is silly (that goes for Intel, let alone Ford!)
And again with all these lists of conditions, he is talking odds, and he is talking risk. You’re free to shoot for the moon if you want, but all the problems and conditions he’s talking about are what usually happen—it doesn’t mean they always happen of course.
Some companies become massive with all their VC funding. But very few—and most fail miserably. And as many have said, this can happen with or without VC funding, but DHH is talking about playing the odds in your favour, and it has to be abundantly clear that the 37signals model is a better-odds model.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather play the better odds of having “just” a 2-10 mill company, rather than shooting for the almost certain failure of trying to be the next Google or Facebook. Maybe that just means I’m not “aiming high enough”, but maybe it also means I’m being way more realistic and way less delusional.
It has to be obvious that there will only ever at one time be a handful of Google’s or Facebooks, while there can easily be thousands of 37signals. Where do you think you will end up?
(And clearly, DHH has ended up racing cars in much of his time—good luck to him!)
FDS-the Wal Project
on 13 Feb 12@George Totally agree with you. Do you work at opal? the design is amazing! Any tips for my project? Thanks
IT Rush
on 13 Feb 12Love the title, its very tempting to read..
RDO
on 13 Feb 12Isn’t SliceHost acquired by RackSpace a prime example of #5?
TJ
on 13 Feb 12Awesome post
Aaron
on 14 Feb 12If getting a loan is your bar for success, aim high! Try a free credit card application & get approved in minutes.
That’s all venture capital is—a loan. Except, unlike other loans, you permanently give up MOST of your equity.
It’s like if you got a mortgage and agreed to give the bank 90% of your selling price in the future (okay, that’s what most people do anyway.)
Jim Rudnick
on 14 Feb 12Great piece here, David…I’ve just posted a link to same from our own softwarehamilton.com site for our members to pop over here and get a real sense of what a VC investment is like…great piece indeed!
Hashim Warren
on 14 Feb 12thanks for breaking this down from a user’s perspective.
VC investment used to make me feel more confident about a product, especially if it was free. Now, i know not to trust any product to stay around whether it’s from a big company or small, VC backed or bootstrapped.
Jared White
on 14 Feb 12DHH, keep doing what you do. The naysayers are threatened once again, don’t bother listening to them.
If I ever take big VC money, it will be after my company has a proven business model and I just need to accelerate it. With luck, that won’t even be necessary.
Jason
on 15 Feb 12Re: The last paragraph…. you mean like Facebook?
Jeffrey D
on 15 Feb 12Whatever. Just don’t say “playa” again.
Ian
on 16 Feb 12DHH – do you have any experience with VC funds or just guessing and poisoning?
This discussion is closed.