Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You're right that in numbers of survivors there bootstrapped ones are going to outnumber the VC ones. But in terms of total # of employees, total $ of turnover and profits I would expect it to be the reverse.

But for any individual founder, if you want to aim for 'successful enough to be relatively wealthy and worry free' then 'bootstrapped' is the way to go. If you aim for an outsize success, wealth for the next N generations and massive impact on the world (for good or for bad) it's going to be very hard to avoid the VC track.

I wrote about this long ago, but it is still quite relevant:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/three-roads-to-the-top-of-the-mo...




> But in terms of total # of employees, total $ of turnover and profits I would expect it to be the reverse.

In general, the less money that startups raise, the better their returns:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/15/overdosing-on-vc-lessons-f...

There are a number of reasons for this, a big one being that marginal revenue is always the least profitable:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/toxic-vc-and-the-marginal-...


This is fully compatible with the OP's point. They mentioned total $. Returns are percentages.


The revenue can be 0. As long as the shares are worth a lot, you are still a very rich person.


Seeing that you wrote the article 12 years ago, I am curious how did it work for you. Did you make it to the top of the mountain?


Well over and beyond my wildest expectations.


I am glad to hear that! So hard work pays out if you have determination.


And lucky... don't discount the luck factor. If not for a few small twists it would have all come to nothing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: