Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Most business founders don’t need VC money and are worse off for taking VC money.

I find the mindset “my pitch deck was 2 months old so I didn’t get funding” very out of touch of business realities. It is far more likely that that type of business doesn’t need VC funding. Your SaaS can probably be built with your daytime developer salary. No VC ever says “wow, what a great investment opportunity, one of the best, but the slides were old”. You don’t even need the slides, or the rehearsed elevator pitch. Just build a business that’s worth VC money (solid, profitable, and ready to scale up) if you absolutely insist on it.




As someone who took more than a year off to build his SaaS - the days of stitching together a prototype at night are pretty much over. You need to be an incredible hustler and have a really good insight into a desperate business need.

Customers today expect polish and few bugs right out of the gate. I spent months on polish alone. If you don't, your product is going to be savaged like this:

"Former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s New Photo-Sharing App Has a Design From the Stone Age"

https://gizmodo.com/marissa-mayer-new-app-shine-photo-sharin...


> ... the days of stitching together a prototype at night are pretty much over. You need to be an incredible hustler and have a really good insight into a desperate business need.

I'll take that as a compliment.. as someone that took nights to build a SaaS product solo into a multi-million dollar business (and still do it solo).


Before: I had no idea this app existed.

Now: I know this app existed.

Having no polish can't be worse than having no app.


How’s your SaaS doing now, if you don’t mind my asking?


friendlyfire.tech is pretty much dormant :)

The benefit of being bootstrapped, of course, is that it's designed with costs in mind, so I don't spend more on hosting than I do on my Netflix subscription.


The fact that writer Jody Serrano is trying to take down another women Marissa has very little to do with polish of the app. Look at OpenAI design.. it's not much better and it doesn't matter.

That article follows a long standing tradition of women attacking other women in power based on appearance to try to elevate themselves. No insight on polishing trends can be learned here.


> Your SaaS can probably be built with your daytime developer salary

Sure. But from experience it takes 3x as long.

After a long day of coding it’s not fun to come home and do another 8 hours.


Even if you love what you do at your day job... The cobbler's kids go without shoes, and the chef's fridge is full of condiments & takeout boxes.


The first thing to go is your social life closely followed by your health.

Bootstrapping is in my opinion much harder than VC backed.


The constant feeling of small wins keeps you going

When you finally take 1 day a month off and look down from 10,000 feet up

The reality of how things are going is gloomy

It might also help if you can mentally spin things to be more boomy. Optimists in the house


I'm hopeful for this silicon valley downturn because while I think you're right that most software business plans are capital-light and could be bootstrapped, the problem with the boom times is that if you try to bootstrap and validate any market you will have a VC-funded competitor come along and blitzscale right over the top of you.


Profitability is optional.


Profitable companies attract much more VC interest and even competition.


Doesn't a VC make money from valuation, not profitability. A profitable business has either reached market potential, or isn't spending enough on growth. Anecdotally I can think of many more examples of unprofitable businesses getting VC money.


> Doesn't a VC make money from valuation, not profitability

Sure, but if the business is profitable that means it works. Now the investment can be spent on bending the curve up (e.g. hire more salespeople that could have been afforded from the company’s revenue alone) rather than the more risky approach of spending the money to see if the product will make it at all.

> A profitable business has either reached market potential, or isn't spending enough on growth.

This is a naïve view from the SaaS era propagated by SaaS and consumer app investors. Does not apply to most businesses and applied to none of the biggest companies today like Microsoft, Apple, NVIDIA, Google, et al.

Look at google: no, it wasn’t profitable (no revenue or even revenue model) but had huge uptake by the nerds without any effort to market it.

> Anecdotally I can think of many more examples of unprofitable businesses getting VC money.

Sure, several of my own companies were funded in this mode. But that capital was more expensive because it was used figuring out if the tech would work and if there were actually customers for the product.


> A profitable business has either reached market potential, or isn't spending enough on growth.

Yes, but spending money on growth is probably the number one thing VCs like to invest in. If you happen to be profitable, but also can demonstrate a clear path to growth, then VCs will lean in.


Not counting their 2% annual maintenance fee, a VC makes money from buying shares low, selling them high, and keeping 20% of the high price minus the low price. So yes, they make money if the valuation is higher than the when they bought it.

Example:

- buy 1 million shares at $1.

- sell 1 million shares for $101.

- (101 - 1) * 1_000_000 = 100_000_000

- 100_000_000 * 0.2 = VC gain of 20_000_000


Yeah that's why all large startups are bootstrapped


I think the argument would also be that you don't need a "large" startup to get something done.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: