[kreck]

Just an anecdote (no judgement here; VC has its place): An acquaintance of mine who works for a VC firm once said "Ultimately, VC money is a loan for people who are not bankable".

That really resonated with me as with that perspective I understood why behavior & practices are closer to what you'd experience if you personally need to take out a loan outside of the regulated banking system

[saberience]

The whole "hate VCs" thing is kind of silly in my opinion. VC wouldn't exist if founders didn't want and need capital and have no other way of getting it.

Also, for every other "evil VC" story, there are other stories where founders are really happy with their VC board members, have a strong and positive relationship with their VC partners, and end up getting some kind of positive exit which wouldn't have happened at all without the investment.

Sure, some VC companies may be shitty, some others may be amazing, but this is basically like everything in life. Some schools are shitty, some cops are shitty, some cars, tech companies, managers etc, are shitty. But some of all these things can also be great and awesome too. Thats life.

[kreck]

I generally agree. Maybe to add to your argument:

A - Just as with customer reviews on amazon unhappy customers are often times the majority to leave a review whereas fewer happy customers voice their opinion in the form of a review. I suspect the same goes for VC interactions.

B - Due to the way the VC business is structured the variance in "quality" of VCs is heavily skewed and not normally distributed, tricking our perception of what to expect. In other words i suspect that you have a much higher likelihood in to interact with a very "low quality" VC or absolute "top VC" than with an "average" VC. If you amplify this with A you may get an even worse public opinion.

Nevertheless I think on an individual basis you're always better off if you don't need VC for your business - if you have that option.

[cageface]

VC wouldn't exist if founders didn't want and need capital and have no other way of getting it.

This is too reductive. A lot of founders have to raise because they're competing with other companies with VC funding, often dumping their product on the market at a loss to starve out bootstrapped competitors and lock in customers.

[saberience]

Yeah but imagine trying to bootstrap a product which relies on network effects with no investment and where profitability is potentially years out. Social Networks are a good example here, or something like Uber.

There are many valuable and amazing businesses where self-funding/bootstrapping doesn't work. Or businesses which start out as one thing, get VC money and experiment, try to find product/market fit over a year or two, and then hit it big and create something really valuable to the market.

I agree that many companies would be better bootstrapping and creating a sustainable, profitable businesses, but the truth is, the VC model and ecosystem does enable certain businesses to exist which wouldn't exist otherwise as people wouldn't work for that long for free or almost no income.

[cageface]

Sure I think VC has value in some cases. I think the zero-interest period distorted their role and pushed them into areas that would have better been served by bootstrapped and profitable small companies. I'm hopeful that with interest rates back in a more reasonable range we'll get a better equilibrium.