[godzillabrennus]

Not all investors are created equal.

Taking their money might mean having to listen to them.

Nothing like fun and games introduced by a bad investor to make an already stressful situation more stressful.

Don’t build a business reliant on investment and you’ll be happier.

If you have to raise then don’t treat it as a good thing, you just sold part of your company and have more bosses now than just clients.

Standard terms hardly exist. Every deal is different.

Venture capital is a business model, Take the time to understand it before you start raising from VC’s.

There is nothing wrong with making a nice lifestyle salary from a small SaaS business without the pain of investors.

There is also nothing wrong with spending other people’s money gambling you can build a big company. Just don't let the terms prevent you from paying yourself if you go that route.

[burntoutfire]

> Taking their money might mean having to listen to them.

How is that structured legally? I doubt they get a majority's vote, so how else can they influence the decisions? Is not all investment money unlocked upfront?

[MattGaiser]

Sometimes they get an equal share. Other times they are just more credible than you and can rally the other shareholders. Other times they threaten other consequences simply through their influence. They don't need a legal mechanism to force your hand.

Never been an entrepreneur myself, but was an employee of a startup in an accelerator and have worked for two others.

[jimaek]

My contract had things like "investors majority" and supervisory board with lots of power where I only had 1 vote.

Those 2 things together could force me to do almost anything if they really wanted.

It's all in the details.

[barnabee]

Yeah, those details matter.

I could definitely get behind “Startups shouldn’t raise money on terms that destroy their autonomy and self determination”