Live data from Hacker News

Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

nytimes.com

1–10 of 271 posts

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#4

My current startup has taken VC funds. Never again. What a nightmare.

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 to just hand us free money, I also didn't expect quite the level of cut-throat behavior we've seen.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#5
To be fair, the NYC VC scene is also abysmal. From what I've experienced there are less than 5 established VC firms (on their 3+ fund) in the city with an eye for vision investing and really want to get behind Founders. I think I made fundraising much much much harder for myself by focusing heavily on raising in NYC. Sadly, many SF folks won't invest in NYC startups due to proximity, so then you're faced with moving your company to SF.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#6
It's a testament to the propaganda that VCs set up in the last ~20 years that this is even a newsworthy article. Since the first dotcom boom, basically, the popular idea of a startup has been synonymous with taking venture capital and then building your business based on making the VC firm fabulously wealthy in the relatively near term. Of course there are a million other ways to build a successful business, but for a while this was the predominant one in the startup world. I'm glad it's changing.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#7

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…

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.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#8
VCs win if enough of their bets make it big enough to offset the ones that go under. Naturally the big hits are few and the ones that fail are numerous. That means the big hits need to be huge and the failures need to have a certain cap. The latter also means you can't run a company for 10 years in slowmo until they get profitable. And the big hits need to be huge which means they need to take over a nice chunk of a market which you can only do with good funding and moving faster than everyone else.

VCs were able to control the startups they invested in to a pretty big degree.

What does that mean for founders? It means that you are putting all your eggs into one basket. A founder does not found 20 startups at the same time in the hope that one succeeds. A founder puts his effort usually into only one. So founders take a larger risk than VCs. They make it big or go bust. And the vast majority goes bust when running in supercharged mode.

What does that mean for startup employees? Well, they got the worst of all worlds. High risk and little to no upside. Their eggs are also in one basket as they work for only one company AND they don't have the huge upsides that VCs and founders have.

The whole game favors only VCs and founders who like big bets. But for the vast majority of people (which includes employees), the VC game is not a great game to play.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#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 traded companies which have lasted a long time (more than a few decades) with minimal impact of the "we have to keep growing" mindset?

Finally, what are the pros and cons of being private without vc funding and being a public company?

And what role does VC play in the broader economy? Does it manage eg pension money? Are there good resources to understand the lifecycle of VC funded companies and what role VC plays in the broader ecocomy?

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#10
One thing that not many people talk about: there's an oversupply of VC funds spawned by the technological waves of the 90s (internet), 2000s (mobile) and everything in between. Today there isn't a clear wave, yet those funds need to deploy capital. Now there are too many funds pursuing not enough VC-worthy opportunities. The VC bubble will pop sooner or later.
Post reply on HN