- Million startups - put loads of cash into thousands of startups globally and play a huge vegas lottery - there is a lot of work there for the BC companies but played well it will have influence at the levels seen by newspapers or major consultancies used to
- the current much maligned approach that is going to creep further up the series A B C tree supplying capital to companies that have developed the model to just churn
- your one. The one I and half of HN is looking for :-) Honestly this confuses me - there is a large chunk of people on this very site that you could have convinced to leave what they are doing and set up a company with the risk of doing so mitigated by "nice VC" cash.
And since everyone in the industry claims they invest in people not ideas then they are turning away people because they won't raise their price to meet a new point on the risk threshold curve.
So yeah something like VCs that fund profitable non IPO businesses seems a good idea. I mean if you stop asking people to make moon shots maybe more of them will just make 20% per year ROI
If a company has a vision fulfilling every request outside of the vision could be considered a distraction. The VC has legitimate concerns outside of the scope of the company vision.
Apple is one of the few modern companies that I can think of where the VC money was useful.
If anyone can remember google before going public and after going public might mourn the old google.
Imagine if google wasn't romanced by Wall Street but followed their own path like craigslist.org. I believe that google would have been much more collaborative. I can't see where going public helped google be good at internet search.
For example, if you're selling any sort of business SaaS product these days, the regulatory regime has changed greatly from 20+ years ago. The cost of just something like SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, which most enterprises will require to even talk to you, often prohibitively prohibits bootstrap-like funding models. Couple that with the fact that software engineering salaries are comparatively way higher than they were 20 years ago.
The short of it is that a lot of people take VC funding not because they want the "misery of competing, stress, exposure, running all the time etc etc", but because, in many industries, there is simply no other option if you're not already rich.
(2) That's a dollar amount that most bootstrappers can swing.
(3) Critically, you don't do SOC2 until you have a critical mass of purchases requiring it.
(4) Many (most?) of your customers, especially your early customers, won't require it, and/or will have alternate paths for companies without a SOC2 attestation.
(5) When you finally do hit the big deal that absolutely demands an attestation, you can often cut a contingent PO: you sign the deal, deliver the stuff, but you don't get paid (or you don't get the last tranche) until you get the SOC2 attestation.
(6) You can get a SOC2 attestation real, real quick.
There may be other things keeping people from bootstrapping SAAS businesses, but this isn't one of them.
The right way to think about SOC2 is that it's a ~$15k outlay that will come up when a major customer proposes a P.O. that justifies it, and little else.
Most of the controls are easy ti meet if you follow any sort of best practices.
Have you ever run a business before? The belief that you can build a business without dealing with competition is a myth. Having a successful company requires picking your poison.
Non-VC is a different poison than VC, and I do agree that it is a much better approach for far more many businesses. But make no mistake, having a company with "no stress and making millions for all to live" is not a realistic goal. There is no free lunch in the world of business. Competition is everywhere. You can either ignore it or embrace it.
Only 30 years. You? Not mean to be as snarky, but this US all or nothing stuff is getting on my nerves just a bit. I came from a simple background, but in a country with free education, so I got a degree in uni, opened a company in high school, all without too much risk. Didn’t need to work myself to death, didn’t have much stress, didn’t need VCs and make more than most here who seem to be dying of stress, lack of proper healthcare, free education etc etc. My clients like I have no funding and that I have enough money yet want to keep working as I like it.
There are many self proclaimed dropshipping millionaires on the the internet selling courses while living the good life in Bali, overleveraged to the gills, living off of credit card debt, desperately hoping the courses they sell as a grift somehow can be ponzied to the next fool before the whole thing collapses. So that's always my assumption when people discuss something in business that seems too good to be true. But maybe you are correct. Perhaps my US all or nothing priors have closed my mind.
What kind of business do you run that can be done without too much risk, how does it make money, and what country do you operate out of? I am genuinely curious and I would like to be prove my priors wrong, if possible. They're not particularly pleasant priors, as you might imagine.
You can make very good income ($4 million profits / annum) in my case while coexisting with competition and having lots of fun.
If you expect company to reject money in order to stay nice, you should be ready to do the same personally. Otherwise it will not work.
Your colleagues can get better jobs elsewhere, so you are constantly competing for talent.
Your customers can get a better deal, or product or service from one of your competitors, so you’re in constant competition with them too.