Phil Libin explains why Evernote took money

I think that it's not just a matter of separating exits from liquidity, but that it is reasonable for anyone with any serious net worth to diversify their assets. If you are worth $20 million because of the equity in your company and 100% of that $20 is tied to that company, it is completely reasonable to diversity some of that $20 million. However, I would say that you need to be prudent about signaling. Diversifying all the risk away from your own business isn't a good sign, but diversifying up to 50% is reasonable. I will add that it's quite ridiculous for investors to be highly diversified and than judge entrepreneurs for wanting to diversify some of their assets when all their net worth is tied up in their startup.

I haven't heard of that story about decoupling exits from liquidity before. At where I live, the mantra is that if you take money, you must have been looking to an exit. If someone put money on you, they must be eyeing for a quick exit - there's no way around it. In fact, I've heard many "mentors" and investors explicitly tell me exactly that.

Is this separation that Phil talks about a common knowledge in the Valley? Or anywhere else?