[cj]

> The hypergrowth demanded by investors when you take on $1.7B in funding is what's the challenge.

This.

The local pizza joint is probably a great family operated business with a enough profit to support the owners + employees (but probably not enough profit to support the owners, employees AND investors).

If you take that same pizza joint and give them $10m from investors, the pizza joint will attempt to franchise their store to a dozen new locations, and they'll probably fail in the process.

Some companies simply aren't meant to be billion dollar companies, yet raise money as if they will be.

[TremendousJudge]

>Some companies simply aren't meant to be billion dollar companies, yet raise money as if they will be.

Well, according to some quick searches the founders seem to be doing pretty alright by themselves. It depends if your objective for founding a company is "do something useful" or "get filthy rich as soon as possible"

[scarface74]

If you take venture funding - by definition you’re not trying to run a lifestyle business - your only goal is an exit strategy.

[rorykoehler]

Whose exit strategy? The companies or your own.

[scarface74]

What’s the difference? If you take investor money you have given up control of your own fate.

[kjs3]

When I did my (one, never again if I can help it) venture funded startup, "the only goal is an exit strategy" came up a lot, and always when one of the founders talked about a growth opportunity that would pay off over years and not months.

[usrusr]

If that's your success metric you are acting fraudulently as soon as you take investor money, because you won't get that without claiming to commit to the goal of making them rich(er) as well.

[Gibbon1]

I think that's the Blockbuster model. I'm unsure but I think Blockbuster net profit during it's existence was roughly zero.

[BubRoss]

I agree although your example hinges on scalability where Dropbox hinges on simplicity that is at odds with growth.