The issue with taking on VC capital is that you need to be in control of how you spend that money, and if you don't need it, then don't take it.
There are also challenges with any business in crossing the chasm. Selling to more customers, or a different set of customers is akin to searching for product market fit a second time and is tricky like the first.
The underlying business fundamentals are also critical.
A great example of a company taking on VC money but growing slowly and methodically is Github. They raised their Series A well after they had established significant revenue and were already profitable for many years.
Though they did get into an extravagent office that was largely unnecessary but they used the extra funds to double down on their own infrastructure and to expand github into the Enterprise. This shift to the enterprise was about finding product market fit with a different set of customers and also about updating the company culture.
But luckily they had revenue, profit, and great advisors to hep them navigate the turbulent waters which allowed them to grow but not crumble under their own weight.
It looks like Nasty Gal just did too many things at once. Moving to manufacturing, warehousing, retail brick and mortar stores, staffing up the company with senior hires that probably weren't a culture and product fit.
One of these errors is costly enough but taken together we now see the results.
Had they instead grown more organically, focused on what was working and double down they could have taken on significantly less money, continued to grow, and still be in business today.
But of course all analysis is easy from the sidelines and the inside story is rarely told.
None the less for a business to be bootstrapped and survive so many years it had to be profitable, then you take on VC money and it falls apart the overall theme is clear.
That's not an indictment on VC money either, because Google, Facebook, Snap, Twitter, Apple, all wouldn't be here without it.