[paxys]

VC-funded startups go out of business.

Bootstrapped startups go out of business.

While there is a large gap in the two models in terms of finances, operations and everything else, trying to argue that customers should pick your company purely because you haven't raised money shows that you are either deliberately being insincere or know nothing about the industry, neither of which are great selling points.

If you want to compete, do it on the basis of features and value.

[cthor]

It's a signal whether you like it or not. Saying "well shucks anything could go out of business" is meaningless. What partners and customers want to know is the liklihood of that happening. Moreover, going out of business isn't the only risk to consider but also pivoting into another business entirely.

[recursive]

As a customer, I might be interested to know if a vendor can continue to exist if they achieve only moderate success.

[plorkyeran]

Yeah, if a non-VC-funded vendor is making a small profit while paying everyone's salaries they're pretty likely to still be around in a few years. A VC funded vendor that's making a small profit but not growing won't be.

[uhhhhhhh]

This I believe is the root of enshittification.

VC/private equity requires growth levels that are unsustainable and the focus on that destroys the long term prospects of a lot of companies that otherwise would provide great value and support themselves.

So the ones that game marketing for revenue (badly developed or designed features, overselling, etc) win over those that provide real value.

[sethaurus]

VC-funded startups go out of business because they are unable to grow fast enough.

Bootstrapped startups go out of business because they are not profitable.

As a customer, knowing that a vendor is already profitable and sustainable is a big green light.