[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.