[borski]

Honestly, as a founder...it is. Dumb money is, in effect, pretty useless, whereas 'smart money' comes with additional benefits (provided you and the partner get along, etc.). It isn't guaranteed, but we leaned heavily on our investors for advice and help, especially in those times when we were either at a crossroads or dealing with a situation we had never seen before (b2b enterprise contracts when all our customers were SMB, etc.).

Some of them were also helpful just as the equivalent of 'executive coaches.' Being in the weeds constantly means it's hard to be objective sometimes. Good VCs and good angels are usually experienced and helpful, even if the incentives aren't perfectly aligned. They mostly are though; growth helps both the VC and the founder, so in that sense they're aligned.

But when deciding how big your option pool should be, your incentives are no longer directly aligned. :)

[nikanj]

Nobody cares if payroll came out of dumb money or smart money. Same for AWS bills, office rent, etc. Having started a few companies, I'd much rather take a long runway than more coaches.

[borski]

You seem to be equating "smart money" with "less money" which isn't true. It may be equivalent, or even more money, possibly with less favorable terms, due to the outsized advantage they provide in other ways.

It's nice that you'd prefer a longer runway to more coaches. I prefer a longer runway and more coaches I trust to help me execute; they are not mutually exclusive and you've presented a false choice, particularly in this market which is so founder-driven.