[tnzk]

> The fact that some people who take venture funds see fit to use those funds in a vain way, doesn't mean that you're forced to use that kind of funding in a vain way.

Most of them force it actually so they believe invested to the right company. The best VCs won't, not all VCs aren't though.

[horsawlarway]

> Most of them force it actually

This is my experience. I literally watched the VC board at a previous company get mad at my then CEO for not spending their cash quickly enough.

Moreover - he was hardly the most fiscally responsible to begin with - exorbitant class A office space, expensive contractors, fully stocked kitchen and snacks, game systems and bean bag chairs in break rooms. Paying customers? Nah - not so much.

But they wanted him to spend FASTER. "you need to adjust spending to be at around a 6 month runway - currently you're at 18. That's too high - spend more!"

My thoughts on the process are two-fold

1. A short runway and high expenses offer opportunities for those VCs to double down in the inevitable next round sooner, at rates more favorable to them

2. They are gambling - they want to either hit the jackpot or bust. They do not want to sit at the table all day (for example, by running slow growing self-sustaining company)

[solatic]

> But they wanted him to spend FASTER. "you need to adjust spending to be at around a 6 month runway - currently you're at 18. That's too high - spend more!"

1. Spending more is easy, and it doesn't require exorbitant parties or perks. You tell marketing to increase their spend by sponsoring high-end conferences and buying out street-level ad space along major thoroughfares and transit. It gets quite easy to burn seven, even eight figures this way.

2. Of course the investors want the company to have a shorter runway, and it's not even about reinvesting in the next round. It's about control. The lower the financial pressure on the company, the less power the financiers have. The higher the financial pressure on the company, the more the financiers are needed to help ensure continuity.

[mattgreenrocks]

Admittedly, I don't think about these CEO-type issues much, so my opinion is not worth even two cents here, but that loss of autonomy in how to structure and run what was believed to be one's own business sounds horrible. I understand what VC funding can do, but delegating those decisions to people not completely invested in the outcome would keep me awake at night.

It explains the behavior of VC-funded firms well though: they elected to receive VC funding, and they flaunt the results of that funding to justify it to others and themselves. It's part of the game. How will others know that you are successful if you are not showing it over and over?

[horsawlarway]

If you're interested, I think this article does a good job of laying out some of the realities of being a founder who has taken VC capital:

https://reactionwheel.net/2021/11/your-boards-of-directors-i...