Sometime this happened. I would prefer to own 100% of a smaller but profitable company instead of 5% of a high-growth/negative profits and starving for the next funding to survive.
There is also: 5% of a high growth, negative profit, thriving company that can rather trivially raise additional capital to keep pushing growth faster.
Hundreds of start-up companies have fit that model over the last 10-20 years.
See: Facebook, Airbnb, Zoom, Twilio, Square, Stripe, DigitalOcean, Cloudflare, Fastly, DocuSign, Teladoc, Datadog, Coinbase, Etsy, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Pinterest, Twitter, Snapchat, Okta, Zscaler, Hubspot, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Splunk, Workday, ServiceNow, The Trade Desk, Snowflake, Roku, Unity Software, MongoDB, Robinhood, Palantir, Roblox, Veeva Systems, Wayfair, Peloton, UiPath (Romania originally), Anaplan, Qualtrics, Asana, RingCentral, Zendesk, Dropbox, Appian, Bumble, Smartsheet, Stitch Fix, C3 AI, Affirm, JFrog, Box, BigCommerce, Sumo Logic, FireEye, Qualys.
Along with dozens of other prominent and smaller companies. And although not US companies, Shopify, Atlassian, Elastic, Wix, MercadoLibre and Spotify are also in that same bucket (and were funded by US venture capital). China also has a ton of thriving companies funded in a similar model (Alibaba, Pinduoduo, ByteDance, Didi, JD, Tencent, etc).
These are significant companies that all followed that model - to one degree or another - and have IPO'd in the past decade (even Tesla's IPO was just 11 years ago, they exist courtesy of the same model).
Salesforce lost money for a very long time. They were founded in 1999, and didn't reliably turn an operating profit until just a few years ago. In a few years they'll be larger than SAP.
Not saying that is a good way to run a business or the one I would personally prefer.