[no_wizard]

Why is that a problem? Bootstrapping is a privilege, just like raising any VC funding is, yet nobody is fighting to change the term for Venture Capital funded startups.

The meaning of which has been well established, both inside tech circles and outside, to mean starting a business without raising any outside capital.

Why do we want to suddenly stretch the meaning of bootstrap? The compelling story here would have been "how we created a SaaS business with 1M ARR with only seed funding", and I'd still have read it. That is something worth being proud of, why is bootstrap better?

[rhizome]

>Why do we want to suddenly stretch the meaning of bootstrap?

Because VCs increase the risk that a company will turn to shit.

[no_wizard]

Doesn't make it okay to stretch the meaning of something that is well established. Not all VCs are bad, not all companys funded by VC money turn into crap. Not all VCs use the same model.

It would be best to explain this. Like I mentioned, why not plainly explain that they did all this with just seed money? That's a really amazing accomplishment in and of itself, and nuance is something that can be explained.

Not to mention, trying to stretch the meaning here is trying to glob a positive onto something that didn't earn it by fitting the definition. Again, why try to obfuscate the truth? Be proud of your background if you think you can be proud of it. Nothing wrong with that.

Just don't try and redefine something that already has concrete meaning. That's nearly the same thing, in my mind, as lying.

[rhizome]

We don't disagree!