11–20 of 70 posts
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
Running business is already hard as is, don't make it harder for yourself with artificial constraints. Especially not for the reason that it is better for the world unless you want to run charity.
Honestly it sounds like this person was a success. Their company is growing and sounds profitable, their customers are happy, and they have a working product. They avoided the "megafunds" and the strings attached to them, and still managed to pay themselves a salary. It's not a smashing unicorn success but it's definitely a success.
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
While it does sound this particular author was just interested in a cash grab, the author and you are both recognizing the stark reality facing many aspiring founders: the choice often boils down to taking a high-stakes gamble with venture capital or settling for the security of a 9-5 job. The current financing landscape offers limited options for those aiming to establish lifestyle businesses in unpredictable market…
There is just as much downside to this route, it’s also risky, you take time away from hobbies and relationships, and even if you’re successful there’s a period where you will basically just have two full time jobs.
That said, I did it this way, and I know a lot of others that have, and I was able to see it through. Timeline:
2012 - hired as a senior engineer at a tech company
2014 - founded my startup Cronitor with a friend. Launched after 3 months of weekend hacking.
2015 - promoted to eng manager in my day job
2017 - promoted to senior manager
2019 - promoted to director
2020 - left job as director
2023 - still working on Cronitor, still growing, we have grown roughly 5x since I left my day job.
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
You're buying into the false dichotomy. A lifestyle business isn't organic growth. It's sitting on a beach pulling in $20k/mo for your Gmail plugin, or getting to buy lots of cool cameras which you love, paid for by your camera-based Youtube channel. There's a whole world of businesses that exists between unicorns and lifestyles.
Bootstrapped tech startups have such low costs and labor as to make other traditional small-business owners jaws hang on the floor in envy.
Unicorn money is a distraction that's keeping everyone's eye off the ball and deluding people into ignoring the power in their fingertips.
> I could have tried roughing it without venture funding, what the industry calls “bootstrapping.” The venture world has a condescending label for bootstrapped companies without scale potential: a “lifestyle” business, which roughly translates to: Good for you, now back to the sandbox until you’re ready to play with the big boys. Given my professed aim, this could have made sense. But there was so much funding for th…
While it does sound this particular author was just interested in a cash grab, the author and you are both recognizing the stark reality facing many aspiring founders: the choice often boils down to taking a high-stakes gamble with venture capital or settling for the security of a 9-5 job. The current financing landscape offers limited options for those aiming to establish lifestyle businesses in unpredictable market…
Which isn't due to anyone's prejudice or greed, it's just math.
If a bank or fund is going to invest in something with merely lifestyle returns, it has to be extremely low-risk, like a corner pizza shop in a neighborhood without a pizza shop. High-risk and low returns is not something any sane outsider would ever invest in.
If something is high risk, it had better have a potentially high return to compensate.
Greater social context would be useful. It’s hard to accurately imagine lifestyles denoted simply by “middle” or “upper-middle” class. They are effectively meaningless terms.
Especially in the US, those are nearly meaningless terms. People from the 1% to 80% call themselves "middle class". All self-described "middle class" status tells us is they're not homeless, and also capable of easily recalling how many homes they own.
So everyone uses 'middle class' unless they own a jet or an island. It's the safe choice.
The tech version of a successful small to medium business, like maybe a regional restaurant group or car dealership. Seems good to me, both for the owners and the broader culture. These owners are the group that keeps the country stable and common sense alive. We can't all have big exits but lots of people can generate enough value to satisfy customers and make a comfortable living with skin the game of society.