[mtrimpe]

Yet every bootstrapped company would grow faster if it took (the right kind of) VC money.

(For the record... I'm happily bootstrapping my startup which is a startup as far as I'm concerned. I'd call startups that rely on VC funding "VC startups.")

[davidjgraph]

I know a couple of 3 person startups where one person was pretty much full-time dealing with the funding side. When you're small that's a huge cut away from people focusing on delivering product.

Both went under and said in retrospect the extra person would have been better applied building the product/marketing.

[bsenftner]

That is the untrue statement of the decade. In my experience, VC and angels are little more than lucky, but deluded to believe otherwise. Or corrupt, and using you to hide their activities.

[vidarh]

Many VC's may very well be primarily lucky, but that does not mean that the companies they put their money on are not more often than not in a position to grow faster with their investment. It's just that they are still also at high, and often substantially increased, risk of failing fast. Not least because an investment is often used to execute strategies that substantially increase the burn rate.

[mtrimpe]

By "right kind of" I meant to exclude the ones you're referring to.

In general I'd find it hard to believe having more resources available reduces your growth rate.

[angersock]

Erm, the issue here is that defining the "right" type of VC funding as the type of VC funding that is "right" is a bit of a tautology...