Raising money is less stressful than bootstrapping
Published in 2022, this chronicle by @AnhTho_FR details the mechanics of building a profitable, self-funded business without venture backing.
Core Principles for Independent Builders:
Charging customers from day one acts as the ultimate filter for building software that solves genuine, high-urgency problems.
Keeping fixed overhead low and leveraging lean infrastructure allows founders to stay alive until market tailwinds kick in.
Small, repetitive improvements in customer retention and conversion rates yield massive returns over multi-year horizons.
Community Debate Themes:
The community focused on B2B customer acquisition channels, cold email vs SEO distribution, and balancing full-time employment with side-project development.
CATEGORY Bootstrapping & MRR →
HISTORICAL ERA Pandemic Bubble (2020–2022)
COMMUNITY SCORE ★ 4 points
TOTAL DISCUSSIONS 0 comments
Congrats on maintaining board control after two rounds - that's rare. However, you're probably misguided if you think you ultimately have control in all scenarios.
In the vast majority of VC deals, the VC gets veto power over acquisitions and buyout offers, regardless of board control. VC's have a fiduciary duty to their LP's to maximize returns. So, if you find yourself in a situation where you receive an acquisition offer that is clearly sub-optimal for your VC's (albeit life changing for yourself and other team members), you will likely be out of luck.
This, in my opinion, is the largest downside of raising at an inflated valuation (not the commonly quoted reason of making the next round harder to raise).
Looks like they raised their Series B only 1.5 years ago. Let's see how they see things 5-10 years down the road.
* It's not clear if they'll be able to raise another round without losing control. What do you plan to do if you run out of your current money without being profitable yet?
* "investors want growth" isn't a problem as long as you're growing quickly, which posthog probably does at the moment. But once growths slows you'll probably get to know that side of them.
* If you raise money at a higher valuation, the required exit size grows proportionally. Once it becomes apparent that you're not on track to reach the target size investors may push for strategies riskier than you'd prefer.
I'm genuinely curious on this dilemma. I feel like I've read plenty of success stories on both sides. Yet I still see more bootstrapped founders coming out on top in terms of take-home pay unless a VC-backed company exits or becomes a unicorn.
I actually see a fair amount of VC-backed founders who have unsuccessful companies pivot into seed investing with other people's money. So they still "win" per-say.
There's probably someone out there who wrote a blog with the opposite premise and they are both relative.
So after the series B, you’re already down to 60% control with your investors holding 40%… sounds like this isn’t a myth.
When disputing whether “fundraising is a drag,” he suggests that you just need a “Proven Team.”
Oh? Is that all? I’ll just ask Sergei, musk, and gates if they have time to become partners
Fundraising really does sound easy when out that way!