[webwright]

That seems like a truly bizarre "hoarding" mentality. What about a co-founder? What about an employee? No stock options for anyone?

I think a better attitude would be: "I will give up equity only if it raises the likelihood and magnitude of success".

Some of your comments after your post see to indicate that you feel that it's easy to get funded (it's not) and that you have to give up "creative control" of your business when you take funding (you don't). Getting the right investors gives you a HUGE advantage (if growth/exits figure into your plans-- maybe they don't).

[IsaacSchlueter]

It's not that it's "easy" to get funding compared with, say, getting a cheeseburger. But it's far from impossible. And I think that I could do it.

That being said, it might be impossible. And not relying on it would be a safer position. The point is, if it's easy enough to avoid, why not just save up the money, and then do it?

I certainly don't mind sharing creative control with fellow creators. In fact, it's absolutely necessary, and almost always a profitable move. Two people are more than twice as productive as one, by a significant measure.

YC doesn't take a huge cut, and the folks behind it are smart enough to know that the best investments do the best when they're mostly left alone.

Growth figures into my plans, but less than other factors. The way I see it, I'm in this for the love of creating things, and the paycheck is so that rent and feeding don't get in the way. At Yahoo, I have less say in what happens, and it's frustrating to see the wrong decisions get made. Being able to say "I told you so" rings hollow after a while. (To be fair, Yahoo is a lot less awful than a lot of other companies, and overall, a great place to work. I highly recommend it.)

In any transaction, it makes sense to put yourself in the best position possible. Selling 5% of a 10 million dollar company is better than selling 10% of a 5 million dollar company; same $$, half the price.

[webwright]

The best position possible and the most equity aren't the same thing. If you can sell 1% of your company to an entity that adds 2% to the value, it's a good bet.

Regarding:

"The point is, if it's easy enough to avoid, why not just save up the money, and then do it?"

Here's why not. You take 2 years to save your money and then roll the dice. If you win big, you get 100% of your exit. If you lose, you spend all of your money. If you raise money, you get more funds than you'll save in 2 years. If you spend it carefully, presumably this will up your chance for success. If you win big, you get 75% of your exit. If you lose, you spend all of someone else's money. And you don't spent two years of a finite life doing something that doesn't turn your crank. :-) Add to that that the fact right investor(s) increase your tiny chance of success by a little bit without requiring that you give up any creative control...

Well, there are lots of good reasons.

I'm not disagreeing with the path you're on-- it just seems like you dismissed the alternative for the wrong reasons.

[IsaacSchlueter]

Thanks for the insight.

Losing someone else's money is a good point. On the other hand, I can live incredibly cheaply (and have in the past), and these days developing an idea is effectively free, apart from living expenses.

And you don't spent two years of a finite life doing something that doesn't turn your crank. :-)

Spending two years hacking without a boss would turn my crank plenty, even if all that comes of it is that I learn I'm not cut out for running a company, and go back to a job. I don't hate my job. The work itself is great; I just dislike working for someone else.

You've definitely pointed out some of the value in accepting investment, even before it becomes a necessity to keep going. I'll keep what you've said in mind, thanks.