[rzwitserloot]

> That is, if you talk to successful founders, they will generally wish they raised less money (due to dilution).

Yes, there is a bit of a self-selecting bias involved here, but the thesis of _WHY_ you should take less valuation is (in the linked article) not based at all on the notion that you then end up with a large piece of the success pie.

It's based on: Hey, take what you need to prove that you have a good product, and don't take more, because taking more just means you'll be chasing a failure for that much longer.

The central tenet of "stop worrying about runway so much, you want as much runway as you need to prove your product and any more runway is just wasting everybody's time. Runway is a tool; not a goal." sounds rather compelling to me, at any rate.

[smallgovt]

I agree with that piece of the article. That is, we should make efficient use of our time and resources. I just don't think it follows that you should raise less money.

Raising more money (especially on non-onerous terms, as suggested in the article) grants you additional optionality down the road (when shit inevitably hits the fan). This sort of optionality is a great way to mitigate risk in what is already a very risky endeavor.

At the end of the day, there's nothing stopping you from being just as efficient with your time/capital. If you want, just set aside that extra money as a safety net, and if you don't want to use it, close shop and return it to your investors.