I would call it "Soft Bootstrapping". It is a very important distinction to make.

I used to work for a company which was growing like crazy and were signing customers left and right. The company hadn't taken any external investment. I was amazed at their "perceived" organic growth rate and very proud of working there. Then, the bubble popped. One day, I found out that one of the founders who actually plugging in the difference every month from his own pocket. Frankly, I was little disappointed.

I think its important to take into account the financial positions of the founders or their investments in their own companies.

That's an interesting distinction. I'm not sure enough information is available in most cases to tell. Without knowing the personal finances of the founders, it's hard to say if bootstrapping means they started with $0, $10k, $100k, $500k, $1m, or $10m in the bank. The implication is often that it's closer to the low end of that list, but people who start companies after doing something else for some years often have a substantial cash pile they can use to self-fund. Especially true when people bootstrap a 2nd company after exiting the first; then it can be closer to angel-investing in your own startup.

> Are all of these bootstrapped, or are some of them self-funded?

HN doesn't seem to make the distinction, for self-funding of less than $100K.

The thing I find particularly fatuous: "We were bootstrapped until we took VC money", as if everyone who takes VC money isn't in the same camp. I guess the company I founded was bootstrapped until our A round valued at $40M. Hey I created a $40M company by bootstrapping!