|
|
|
|
|
by yieldcrv
810 days ago
|
|
bear market in my asset class and fallback employment sector was a little long and its not an early stage company I want fresh IC references and thats been successful I want subsidized health insurance / contribute to an HSA and that's been successful, at least I have COBRA again and can keep contributing to an HSA uninterrupted I want professional validation on stacks I want to use, get paid to do that I want structure because doing side projects on my own schedule didn't have the same motivation for me why does being versed in other parts of the industry dilute the point, need me to log in with an alt to be relatable? |
|
But I think it's fair to say you have to pick a lane. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you haven't succeeded as a founder, it rings ironic to proclaim "4 year vesting with 1 year cliff is just simulating what FAANGs were doing 10 years ago but out of touch tech wannabes are imagining is normal now" or that "we only took non-dilutive capital, nothing that converts to shares - people need to use their imagination."
Do you think it's fair for someone would to ask whether if you were really serious about succeeding as a founder, you should've invested a little less imagination into the capitalization strategy and a little more imagination towards identifying the ideal customer problem to be solved? After all, it's not like there's any dearth of founders who have built successful businesses with the standard VC backed approach. Especially those who were facing bear markets for what they were building.
Lord knows VC could use some competition. The issue I've observed is that everything else (except bootstrapping for very specific kinds of businesses) is purely worse for a founder who isn't already independently wealthy, which is ultimately just a different kind of bootstrapping.
I'd love to be proven wrong if there is, empirically, an alternative.