Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 271 posts

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#11

Post by benmarten »

NickBusey wrote: post #4
nullcipher wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate?

I think TFA did a better job with that than I ever could. Regardless, my short summary is that VCs, in my experience, are the worst of people who don't give a shit about you or your team, and just want to see more and more money. I don't want to deal with or be involved with people like that. Edit: Also I should note, many of our VCs pitched themselves as 'angel' and 'impact' investors. So, while I didn't expect them…

Well, that's kinda expected isn't it? Also keeping in mind that essentially 9/10 startups fail, VC's are well aware of that and basically treat you that way. Welcome to the lions den!

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#12

Post by paulcnichols »

smartplaya2001 wrote: post #7
NickBusey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think TFA did a better job with that than I ever could. Regardless, my short summary is that VCs, in my experience, are the worst of people who don't give a shit about you or your team, and just want to see more and more money. I don't want to deal with or be involved with people like that. Edit: Also I should note, many of our VCs pitched themselves as 'angel' and 'impact' investors. So, while I didn't expect them…

interesting we decided to bootstrap in 2016. Chasing down VC's is such a time drain when you can focus on your product. we now have about 28k users.

Good for you! Doesn’t seem like a hard fork in the road though. You could probably raise a round much easier on way better terms now that you’ve proved the business. Maybe you’ll hit a point where the infusion of money really would make a difference.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#14

Post by chillacy »

mr_puzzled wrote: post #9

Reposting my question : So let's stay I start a startup, grow and manage to take it public, what happens next? Is the company expected to keep growing indefinitely? What happens if growth is stagnant, but the company is profitable? I also hear about the mid-life and late stage of companies. Can you explain what these terms mean and how being in these stages affects the company? Are there any good examples of publicly…

> Are there any good examples of publicly traded companies which have lasted a long time (more than a few decades) with minimal impact of the "we have to keep growing" mindset?

Are there publicly traded companies which _didn't_ have a thirst for growth? By definition, companies which go to the lengths of raising money on the stock exchange are exactly those who grew beyond small business / private equity levels. So this question seems paradoxical to me.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#16

Post by [deleted] »

benmarten wrote: post #11
NickBusey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think TFA did a better job with that than I ever could. Regardless, my short summary is that VCs, in my experience, are the worst of people who don't give a shit about you or your team, and just want to see more and more money. I don't want to deal with or be involved with people like that. Edit: Also I should note, many of our VCs pitched themselves as 'angel' and 'impact' investors. So, while I didn't expect them…

Well, that's kinda expected isn't it? Also keeping in mind that essentially 9/10 startups fail, VC's are well aware of that and basically treat you that way. Welcome to the lions den!

[deleted]

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#17

Post by neom »

chillacy wrote: post #14
mr_puzzled wrote: post #9

Reposting my question : So let's stay I start a startup, grow and manage to take it public, what happens next? Is the company expected to keep growing indefinitely? What happens if growth is stagnant, but the company is profitable? I also hear about the mid-life and late stage of companies. Can you explain what these terms mean and how being in these stages affects the company? Are there any good examples of publicly…

> Are there any good examples of publicly traded companies which have lasted a long time (more than a few decades) with minimal impact of the "we have to keep growing" mindset? Are there publicly traded companies which _didn't_ have a thirst for growth? By definition, companies which go to the lengths of raising money on the stock exchange are exactly those who grew beyond small business / private equity levels. So t…

You could look at it more like their are companies like Ford that look a very long time to build a supply chain and distribution network that may have hammered long term innovation thinking, innovation is required to sustain growth over very long periods of time, and many huge companies either don't focus on that because of other business complexities, or because the supply chain is so tight it's very hard to undo and re-tool to innovate.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#18

Post by peterlk »

This might be an unpopular opinion, but my view of VC money has changed significantly in the last couple years.

Raising money is a failure mode. If you are raising money it is because you failed at something and you need the money to catch yourself. This is more true for software companies than, say hardware companies, but I think is still generally true.

For example, if you are raising because you need to hire people. You have failed to find small team to cofound the company with, or you have failed at developing the necessary skills yourself.

I'm not saying that no one should ever raise money, I just want entrepreneurs to stop seeing it as some kind of badge of honor. I hear people measuring themselves on how much money they've raised way too often. You don't build great things by raising money, you build great things by building them. Measuring your company on the number of customers it has is _much_ healthier than measuring your company on how much money it has raised.

Focus on profit and quality.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#20

Post by mr_puzzled »

chillacy wrote: post #14
mr_puzzled wrote: post #9

Reposting my question : So let's stay I start a startup, grow and manage to take it public, what happens next? Is the company expected to keep growing indefinitely? What happens if growth is stagnant, but the company is profitable? I also hear about the mid-life and late stage of companies. Can you explain what these terms mean and how being in these stages affects the company? Are there any good examples of publicly…

> Are there any good examples of publicly traded companies which have lasted a long time (more than a few decades) with minimal impact of the "we have to keep growing" mindset? Are there publicly traded companies which _didn't_ have a thirst for growth? By definition, companies which go to the lengths of raising money on the stock exchange are exactly those who grew beyond small business / private equity levels. So t…

I should have worded it differently: what I was trying to ask was - publicly traded companies by definition have to keep growing and have the "we have to keep growing" mindset, and this often negatively impacts the products eg- facebook showing ads way too often, collecting more user data and it's parly driven by the desire to keep growing and earning more ad dollars. Fb is a perfect example of a product going downhill as it grows. Are there companies which continue to make products loved by users even though they have the "we have to keep growing" mindset? One example was Apple, but they are starting to faulter, increasing prices way too much. Some gaming studios are publicly traded and seem to be doing fine. The WWE company also seems to be doing fine. I'm looking for such examples but companies which have been around longer than that.
Post reply on HN