[brianfitz]

The risk is on future rounds as these aren't guaranteed. The founders will be the ones to take the lowest salaries when cash gets low and possibly float the company on their own savings. Two very successful companies I'm familiar with (both with billion dollar exits) saw the founders max out their credit cards through the lean times. Not all success stories are just a straight line up and to the right -- those are the just the exceptions that get the most attention.

[sillysaurus3]

Founders shouldn't take on personal credit risk in order to do a startup. Even pg says not to do it.

[hnnewguy]

>Founders shouldn't take on personal credit risk in order to do a startup.

Only in the Silicon Valley bubble, where everyone is all about "other people's money", would someone actually believe this. Back in the real world, entrepreneurship involves personal credit risk. You don't get anything for free.

[walshemj]

But not open-ended liability that's the point of a Joint Stock company you might ante up some capital but not so much as to bankrupt you.

[brianfitz]

Those who drink alcohol shouldn't become alcoholics. However, it's a risk. It's easy to say that a founder shouldn't go into debt to keep their dream afloat and protect their employees, but the reality of it is very hard. If it weren't a risk, pg wouldn't have written about it. Going back to the original question, a founder reaching into their own pocket might not involve acquiring debt, but rather cutting their own salary. When faced with making a payroll, the founder(s) are likely simply not to pay themselves to get through a cash squeeze.