This. Founders are better served maximizing traction at the lowest outside investment possible. If it doesn't become big, then you still hold a large chunk of a small company. And if does, then you hold a fairly large chunk of a large company.
It is. It used to be seen as a sign of lack of confidence in your company that you would take money out, because if you believed that your company was heading for the moon you would want every share possible. BTW, the same was true for earlier investors: Non participation was the kiss of death.
FD: Info from about 10 years ago.
So investors are willing to give founders significant liquidity so they are comfortable (or locked in to) "going all the way" (snapchat comes to mind [1]).
Remember, investors need billion dollar returns to return a fund. So giving founders a few million to pad their pockets, reduce their own risk, and extend their companies timeline is occasionally a simple decision.
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchats-founders-pocket-10-...
It's obvious that founders prefer to keep more of the company, however tortured of a phrase you use to express it.
I think the overall point is not to never take outside investment, it's to carefully consider where you are in your product's lifecycle and what your market actually looks like before you take outside money. Refusing VC money if your market is huge means that someone else will take it and eat the whole market. Taking VC money when your market is small will kill your company just the same, because you won't be free to make the trade-offs necessary for a small company to succeed in a niche market.