[rdslw]

> Taking VC cash is very often a game of deciding whether you want to gamble it all on faster growth or take less risk for less cash, but with the additional caveat that the investors you take on often will cheer for the "gamble it all" option as they have many parallel bets while you as the founder has one.

This shall be printed in block letters in a red frame ahead of most Paul Graham essays about milk, honey and richies in startup land.

He and VCs push theirs agenda because he has hundreds of bets, while founder has one.

They play different game and are quite quiet about it.

[vidarh]

Sure, it ought to be clearer, but apart from maybe the first time, I still would have taken VC cash because it allowed us to do things we otherwise wouldn't have been able to try, and it was a fun ride. Even without any large exits, if you negotiate then you can still come out very well.

But, yes, people ought to go into it understanding which game they're playing, and understanding that your odds are different. Not least because it might make a difference in how you judge advice from your investors.

(There's also only one decision I regret us making due to investors being too willing to take risks; in retrospect I was firmly proven right but whether the board vote going the other way would have made a financial difference in the long run I can't say)