Is it okay to just bootstrap it, even when VCs are knocking?

Congratulations on finding success and satisfaction in your work. I hope to one day find the same. Personally, I think you should keep doing what you’re doing. If you accept VC money you are now beholden to your shareholders and are no longer in control of your business. The degree of autonomy you have, the quality of your product, and the satisfaction you derive from your work will all surely suffer as a result. It’s a deal with the devil and frankly, were I running a business, I would stay away.

PS. These are merely the opinions of someone with no experience operating a business.

I've done both. Bootstrapped a business to >$10m and (now) running a VC-backed firm. The models are different because the markets the two companies operate in are different. I see VC money as getting steroids in a competitive sport (not speaking from experience on that one...): it will save time, it will probably affect your health, but if you are indeed competing in sport, and other competitors are doing it, you don't have much choice.

So, I would advise you to look around you: what is your market? is it that highly competitive? can you still be in that market without competing (e.g. a highly fragmented market)? do you want to compete and can you avoid it?

Also keep this in mind: a VC-firm is meant to exit, if not immediately, then eventually. But, a bootstrapped firm also has to exit at some point too: you'll either have to sell it (maybe at a loss), shut it down, or pass it down (death comes for us all). Are you willing to do any of these? that's part of the answer to "do you want to compete?" above...

Building a bootstrapped business (i.e. NOT taking venture capital) is a rare skill. I would keep on building without outside capital if you can continue to build growth. If you hit a ceiling (without growth) then you may want to consider looking for/accepting outside capital.

As soon as you accept VC funding, there are basically 3 outcomes for your company. Getting acquired, going public (if that's an option where you are) or going bankrupt.

If you can keep growing without VC funding, I'd keep doing that.

I’m doing the same (small, bootstrapped SaaS, 10k MRR), previously leading tech from seed->C at a VC startup. It’s definitely okay to stay bootstrapped!

Main question to ask is whether you have considered the overall potential threats to the business, and what you’re trading off against by not taking VC; and if you are comfortable with those risks and tradeoffs.

There’s no universal answer, but there are better answers depending on the business / those risks. For example if your business is at increasing risk of a better-funded competitor eating your lunch, a bigger war chest might be prudent.

Keep in mind that there are a substantial set of skills you will need to develop, and responsibilities you will need to make time for, when taking VC investment. Not necessarily a negative, and for me it was desirable. Fundraising, managing investors (eg updating the board quarterly), hiring faster, and scaling the product faster. I’m hand waving here, but as you’ve guessed it’s likely not just take money and keep on operating exactly the same way. Big checks will come with certain expectations, and meeting them can dramatically change the culture and lifestyle you’re trying to achieve.

Lastly, there are ~boutique VC firms out there that specialize in smaller SaaS with good trajectory. The VC that is knocking may be the wrong match for your goals, but it’s OK to shop around a little.

Quick thoughts but feel free to find/dm me if you’d like any addl advice or anecdata. And, congrats!

I'm a solo dev doing $700k yearly across two saas products. I'm also the founding engineer at Reforge (e.g. I've done the VC game from A16Z).

There are two things I look at when raising VC.

1. What's the TAM of my product and will a capital injection get me there faster?

2. Do I actually want to raise capital or do I want to work at my own pace?

The last couple of years (after Reforge), I've just been working at my own pace -- healing from my last VC run.

Success to you is for you to define. Don't fall into the trap of VC funding because its all you read on HN or Techcrunch. What you have built is your baby so don't let anyone else tell you what you should be doing. It sounds like you have so much meaning and purpose in the company you have. If (and it sounds like) you don't want the vc money, then that is the right decision for you.

Given that you're enjoying what you're doing, you're making decent money, and you have a path to scale, personally I would (and did) do exactly the same as you. Once you take VC money you're in a completely different situation, where you need to grow fast to show them a return. Also, you need to grow much more to get the same return for yourself than you would if you just bootstrapped. If you want to become a billionaire (or hundred-millionaire), then yeah, you should take VC money. But if you just want to make a comfortable living and ultimately achieve financial freedom, I'm not even sure VC money improves your odds. And it definitely comes with a lot of added obligation and stress.

That said, I've never actually taken investment, so I can't speak from personal experience on that side.

I can tell from your post that you will absolutely hate ceding control to a VC

I would recommend finding a co-founder who has similar ideals but can handle the parts you don’t like doing, and has business experience. You’ll get much further without losing real control

I worked for a startup that had bootstrapped but eventually received VC funding. The culture change was palpable, which I can only attribute to influence from the VCs. Everything became about growth, growth, growth - which really sucked the enjoyment out the work. I and several others ended up quitting.

If you're satisfied with being paid to solve clients' problems - which is a very common and in my opinion positive mindset, whether one is a business owner or an employee - then if I were you, I'd just stick with that. You've already achieved something to be very proud of!

It sounds like your "Silicon Valley" type friends have ideologically bought in to a pipedream. Please be true to yourself and your own beliefs and try not to succumb to peer pressure, is my advice.

An old article by Joel Spolsky talking about this exact decision:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-...

Organic growth vs throwing investor money at every problem.

Juicy quote: "Still can’t decide? There are other things to consider. Think of your personal values."

I would say trust your instincts on this one. VC absolutely comes with strings attached, and those strings can easily lead to worse outcomes for both you and your customers.

Of course VC has its place, and some things are better off targeting massive scale from the beginning, but it does preclude a lot of good ideas just based on the economics. Given the scalability of software, running leaner can enable a wider variety of products that deserve a place in the world. If you want to split the difference with some funding you could consider https://tinyseed.com/.

> It probably won't last forever, but it's simple and it feels authentic.

(Inexperienced armchair take:) it's more likely to last 'forever' (which I take to mean 'to retirement'/'as long as you want it to'/etc.) than taking investment/being acquired. Sure that could lead to lasting 'forever' on a bigger scale (as a more stable bigger company, or a longer 'forever'), but at a much lower probability.

I don't think you're weird - I'd love to be in your shoes in this regard. Can't say for sure I'd have the stomach to turn down cash offers of course, but the VC route has never been a dream/had the appeal for me it obviously does to many. I think perhaps because I'm not so interested in 'having a successful company' for its own sake, I wouldn't want to have to 'pivot' for example, I'd rather build something I care about, and the business side would be just doing the best I could to support that; maybe that would be a large cash injection in exchange for equity, but you don't mention any massive expensive changes you want/need to make. (That sounds pretty stupid and obvious when I write it out, but it's definitely a lot more of a traditional approach than taken by most that would use the term 'startup', or really the vast majority of new software/genuine tech companies.)

> Am I being a weirdo?

Probably, but there is nothing wrong with that! Chase you own happiness, not other people's goals, if you have the luxury of doing so, which it would appear that you have.

Just maybe have a plan B ready to change your mind to if life or your own mind changes later, and you want out to pursue something else.

> Some of my more "Silicon Valley"-type friends think I'm nuts.

I'm similar with my stance on staying in a safe, slightly stagnated, salaried lifestyle, avoiding the word "manager" or similar in my job description, when people tell me I could make a lot more contacting or managing teams on larger projects. I could do those things, but if I can support my hobbies, mental health (more or less…), and other lifestyle (mortgage on small flat being paid off in a few months) and find time for those hobbies, while making enough tinkering with interesting problems in the day job, why should I lose that to chase more later that isn't guaranteed, if I don't want to take that risk?

Though with the same caveat as above: I am currently trying to adjust my skillset a bit (bringing some rotted parts back up to date) so I have wider options for escape plans should I decide I don't like (and can't sufficiently effect from within) the changes that are going on around me.

Your situation sounds awesome, and I don't think your preference sounds weird at all. Congrats on the success!

You can find more like minded folks in the Indie Hacker community, if you haven't run across it yet.

See https://www.indiehackers.com/

One thing to realise is that a lot of those VCs will be junior analysts and tyre kickers looking to fill their diary. I am involved in a handful of businesses and they could all fill half of their week taking those calls, even though the investors are not serious. They conclude the call with “let’s keep in touch” even though the businesses have stellar growth and margins.

If I was to take VC funding again I would combine it with taking a big slug off the table personally to derisk things. For this to make sense you would probably need to scale the business quite a bit more before that becomes viable.

I’m in almost the exact same position, minus the knocking VCs. For a while I felt like I should look for funding and more growth to be a real „company“. Over time I realized that the path this would probably take me on isn’t really for me: I deeply care about delivering a quality product and managing my own time and priorities and I’m pretty sure that would fly out of the window. A VC funded competitor exists and is bigger, but the market is big enough for both (and others). I enjoy being the „weirdo“.

I make a bit less than you, and have also been approached by investors.

I'm not sure what an investor would bring to the table. I guess they would tell me to hire people, tell me to raise prices, tell me to do more marketing, etc. I doubt they would pay me substantially more than I make now without substantially increasing the amount of work I have to do.

I don't really want to do any of that. I've tried hiring people, and didn't like the responsibility. I realised I prefer working on my own. I make enough money to support my family, and I prefer having the free time to read HN instead of hustling to get more people to buy my app.

Either path can be right for different people. And the wrong decision can be horrible.

You can always take VC later, but you can’t un-take it. So you should be pretty sure that you want to spend the next 10 years of your life shooting for a billion dollar company. Otherwise, stay the course.

Taking seed funding (such as from YC) is not as big a risk as VC funding. Seed-funded companies often don’t go on to take VC, and while seed funders will encourage you to go for the big time, they won’t have the board fire you from your own company like a VC would if they think you’re under-delivering.

Bootstrapping a business is normal outside of tech, and common in tech when outside of SV. Not only is it a good thing, it allows you to be more sustainable. VC will push you to be huge - to them, a small successful business is a failure: They need monster-sized successes. So they will push you to take large risks to get you there, and not really care if those risks cause your business to fail because they are pushing a dozen other people like you to do the same.

So if you are happy with the money and passionate about the space, you'd honestly be nuts to take VC funding.

You're not a weirdo, but you should also be realistic that, if a megacorp wanted, they could easily create a subpar clone of your offering, and drive you to obsolescence with marketing within months.

There was a recent story here on HN from someone who described just that. Can't remember the link, alas. EDIT: found it, see reply below.

You might consider taking on some debt, perhaps in the form of a convertible note, given what the economy is doing. That gives you a cushion for N years of degraded revenue. Depending on the terms, the strings might be minimal.

If you sell equity, the VC's will expect a huge multiple return on investment over ~5 years.

If your company could get to $100m-1b a quarter with the VC money (but not without), then take the cash. If projected revenues after you saturate the market are much lower than that, then the VCs will probably want you to build the company so it can be easily acquired for a quick buck. It sounds like you don't want that.

I joined a bootstrapped SaaS several years ago in a niche domain. They were making 10x that again in MRR, growing rapidly and still 100%-owned between the 2 founders. VC's knocked on their door every week but they had their own vision for growth.

Don't be afraid to walk your own path.

I'm the kind of person who prefers a reasonable salary at a reasonable stress level. I wouldn't want to work super hard for a chance at becoming super rich, because I'll probably have a heart attack before payday.

VC money comes with the obligation to 3x it in 3 years. Unless you need it, stay away!

Personally, I would always pick bootstrap over VCs after past experiences when I can (there are businesses that simply cannot be started without a lot of cash). But I don't want to be a billionaire; I want to live comfortably and doing what I like; also, like you say, I don't want the 'go big or go home' attitude; you can get VC money and be gone in 6 months even though bootstrapped you would've ran the same business, but slower, for a decade+.

We had VCs in the past and it can take out the fun immediately depending on your taste. They (VCs) simply demand results, fast, so you change from someone who does what they like and believe in, to someone who has to focus on numbers, growth, staffing and presentations (always be raising once you're in!). Even for me as CTO, the VCs we worked with demanded me to be more of a MBA CTO dan a tech CTO; that's not me (I ran companies as ceo/cfo and know the theory well enough; I just find it a waste of life for me personally while there are other people who love that, so why would I?), so I had some words with them over that every meeting.

In short; if you don't need to and you don't want this pressure cooker growth, I wouldn't give away % for money; only for people who really benefit your company and are willing to grow slower with you. Definitely not weird at all.

When people you don't know come to you to force themselves into your business and push for a vision that is not yours, and you are wondering if you are weirdo for not wanting them to do so? I would say you are very normal.

Money is not everything and if the time come when you have a vision that requires capital and you know what you want to do with this extra cash, then you will know where to look, but don't feel bad for willing to be in charge of your business.

Jason Cohen has an amazing talk on bootstrapping, with some very solid advice from his own experiences: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=otbnC2zE2rw

Personally I think there is a lot of “kudos” for getting VC funding, so founders often get lured just for status reasons, joining the competition to become a unicorn.

Unless you want to (or need to) “swing for the fences”, why give up ownership?

Being a founder is already hella risky, and accepting VC money increases your leverage and your risk, which is just uneconomic for an average individual to do (unless they are already wealthy). Don’t double down on a risky bet.

VCs get preferential shares, and they have a lot of different ways of taking control in the clauses of the contracts you sign which disempower you, and in return you get shitty common shares and often lose control for the worst reasons.

I helped found a small business, and we retained full ownership which worked out great for us, although we will never get those mystical 7/8/9 figure payouts. The majority of founders only make wages[1]. We were in an incubator during our inception and I saw a lot of businesses get sidetracked by all the funding bullshit, control issues, stress, wasting time chasing investors, trying to follow conflicting or bad advice.

If you do want to chase funding, consider applying for https://www.ycombinator.com/apply/ which will help avoid you getting shafted. Other VC transactions are highly negotiation information asymmetric, because they have done many many transactions and you are doing your first, so you will get taken advantage of. By joining YC you get the help of a repeat player (game theory) with strong backing and solid knowledgeable advice, so you have far more negotiating strength.

[1] It is hard to get figures on returns for founders, but the median is bad. Most VC funds lose money[2], so VC backed founders do worse (common shares). Some analysis for YC backed founders (and YC founders are more successful on average than most): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31350478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30926821

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24911009

You have drawn enough attention for VC cold calls which means your idea is attractive. Your VC funded competitors will grow faster than you unless they botch things. If that is acceptable, continue present course.

The key question is asking if a choice aligns with your exit strategy for the business. Do you want to have a small entity for fun, or give up control to a more competitive business management team with differing priorities.

In general, VC money always comes with strings attached, focuses on seeing an ROI within 3 years, and founders are usually pushed out of strategic roles as policy. While self-managed small firms are more vulnerable to competition from clown factories with $54m budgets to throw at risky projects. Thus, a lucrative market position usually degrades with time... regardless of either path chosen.

VC money is often a worse deal than debt-financing growth with a bank.. due to equity value siphons. They are both usually unnecessary if you are already in a profit mode. =)

These don't sound like serious inquiries. Have you been approached by a partner at a VC firm or a executive at the Megacorp? This sounds more like due diligence against other investments they are considering by having low level folks reach out to see what they can uncover.

Have you considered other sources of equity financing other than VC?

As you rightly identified, "VCs I've spoken to want to turn up the heat and take the business to the moon, planet-scale growth or self-destruct". This is the standard mental model within the VC industry - that only 1 in 10 of your portfolio companies need to moon in order for you to return your promised 20% IRR to your end investors. So push all your companies to either moon or implode. Taking VC cash and aiming for the moon is SV dogma hence your SV friends insta-calling you nuts. There's no doubt that this model has been responsible for significant value creation but it's certainly not the only way to create huge value.

Another category of equity investor is: individuals with cash (Angels, Family Offices). There are many within this category that are investing like VCs i.e. moon or bust. But there are also many within this category that are looking for long-term growth i.e. lower IRR with lower risk of failure. By the nature of them investing their own money, they will typically have more skin in the game than a VC and will able to provide more mentorship to you.

We took seed capital from several different sources including VC (including Founders Fund) and angel investors. The angel investors have been BY FAR the most helpful. It's the classic 80/20 - most angels are completely disengaged, a few have had a transformative effect on our company.

One more point, if you do decide to sell shares for money then do it when you are in a strong position so that you can get the most favourable control terms. There are the standard economic terms (valuation) that everyone talks about. But the control terms are just as important - be willing to take a lower valuation from an investor that is willing to have very founder-friendly terms.

And another point, you can always consider debt financing if you have relatively stable cashflows. But at the early stage this usually comes with all sorts of strings attached which is why in the majority of cases a the early stage, founder-friendly equity financing is preferable. But keep an open mind here.

You should look into TinySeed. You’d get a little bit of money, great guidance on growing the SaaS. The terms are reasonable. They’re looking to generate same returns as VC funds, but without the swinging for the fences approach.

If you're happy, then live your life, man. We're all weirdos in our own ways.

The advantage of VC etc. is that if you have objectives for your company that you can accelerate with money, then you can do that faster than if you do it solo. That's useful because the only really irreplaceable resource on the personal scale is time.

But if you feel fulfilled doing your thing then maybe live it. There's hundreds of businesses of this size that can live forever because the TAM isn't high enough. And anyone who attempts venture scale in those will just fail. So this could be a very rational decision.

Enjoy and congrats!

I am bootstrapping a SaaS for 13 years. We are at $100M+ ARR and almost a hundred people. Still enjoying it. We've slowly built a strong team during these years and it is a real pleasure to participate and see them solve problems, innovate and iterate. There is nothing VC funding can offer that would make my life better or my work more enjoyable.

I am thankful to myself for ignoring VC funds and acquisition offers.

My advice would be to listen to yourself.

> Am I being a weirdo?

"Weird" would be if someone chimed in here to say that what you're doing is not OK.

"Weird" is those so-called friends of yours telling you you're "nuts", not acknowledging that your priorities may differ from theirs.

"Weird" is founders taking VC money before they've found product-market fit, which is something you've already accomplished on your own, without their "help".

If someone aspires to build an Uber-sized business, good for them. Not everyone falls in that camp. I definitely do not, and it sounds like you don't either. It's honestly exhausting that this still needs to be explained to some people.

Lifestyle choices such as the one you describe are inherently subjective, like what kind of food is your favorite. Some people like Italian food, and some people like Chinese food. Some people prioritize blitz-scaling and take pride in "sleeping on the factory floor"[1], and some people would rather have a semblance of work-life balance.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/elon-musk-says-he-is-sleepin...

Just a question, is there even a reason to keep pursuing revenue growth? VS taking more time off, focusing on yourself? I mean if you're making 15k monthly...

You do have a real business already: understanding potential customer problems, solving it and charging for it. If you want to grow your activity, VCs are one way that has been pounded for the last decade or so, but not the only one! You could start by looking for an associate, you could employ someone to help with tasks you’re not comfortable with, etc. Be the entrepreneur you want to be, not what the crowd tells you to be!

It will depend a lot on the situation.

In my personal observation, bootstrapped businesses fare better in many important aspects. But this might be due to survivorship bias. If you are patient and your business allows, I think there is a lot of advantages of keeping full control and having to go through all of the lessons at a slower pace and, more importantly, at the pace of your choosing.

The company I am currently working with ran into some problems and decided to pause the growth and fix some stuff before resuming. This is only possible because the the founders are fully owners of the company and can do whatever we decide makes best sense.

On the other hand there are situations where the winner takes it all. If you are in this kind of situation you probably should take funding as long as it is not going to be distracting you from your product and growing your company.

I think you use the funding like any other loan. What are you buying with it? Do you have to take it? How much do you really need? Are benefits higher than the costs?

You are not nuts but knowing what you feel in the future is very hard while having money can almost guarantee that you will be able to take more choices that make you happy.

Just heard about someone working on a passion project for two years alone and he got burned out and only wants to sell it to someone so he can stop. Did he enjoy doing it for a year? hell yeah! could he have anticipated he will burn out? not sure.

Will you want to continue do this particular project in a year? two? ten? what about family, kids health issues? each one can take something that you used to enjoy and turn it into a burden.

VCs will push you forward, getting co-founders will push you forward, getting employees will push you forward. Will this reduce the joy that you feel now? almost certainly. Will it improve the chances that you can have a life changing amount of money that will let you make more enjoyable choices in the future? very likely so.

A business is not always fun, but fun things usually don't stay fun forever anyway. Ask anyone that used to have a band :)

Some part of the equation depends on the size and structure of the market.

If you can scale to a large business with little competition, say $100m+ in revenue per year, it's strongly worth considering. You might be able to exit with generational wealth. However, if the market is very competitive and/or mature, it's much harder to reach that scale. If it's not capital intensive, has few potential entrants, and is growing organically, you might be able to grow without investment and be fine.

The question to ask yourself is what's your long term objective (10+ years) and is meeting that objective worth the risk?

ps. I'd add that failure for a VC is not like failure to me and you. If you are the 3rd place in a market and exit for tens of millions (to you) that might still be a poor return for the investor, but life changing for you.

If you see your Saas remaining under 10 million revenue / annum, VC is pointless. VC businesses between 10 million to 100 million exits make no sense imo. Either go full out and sell for over 100 million or fail early under 10 million. Over 100 million is the VC sweet spot.

The founder of SaaStr Jason Lemkin wrote a pretty good article that can help you think about this decision

https://www.saastr.com/the-10x-rule-what-raising-1-of-ventur...

The immediate impact is that that MRR that you have is no longer eligible for dividend payment. Expectation will be that you reinvest all income for growth until you exit (acq, IPO).

On the positive side, you’ll get to explore how big your idea can really become. And with much less worries about immediate cashflows than you otherwise would have if you were to grow your headcount.

tldr; think big or enjoy your small scale success. (As others have pointed out, absolutely nothing wrong with the latter.)

> Is it okay (...) Am I being a weirdo?

Even assuming that it that makes you a weirdo: you can be weird if you want.

If you want to take a middle ground, so you can get some funding without the pressure of high-powered VCs you could look at something like Calm Fund: https://calmfund.com/

>I'm enjoying the lifestyle of "solve client's problem, client pays me money, innovate, iterate". It probably won't last forever, but it's simple and it feels authentic.

Don't underestimate that! It's better to have a good source of income, freedom of action, and be happy doing something enjoyable and meaningful in life, rather than chase unicorns by dealing with investors you don't like forcing you to do things you don't like. Up from a certain income level, extra money doesn't bring more happiness. And that income level isn't that high.

Hi, I'm exactly in the same situation, bootstrapped saas (that I care a lot about!) at $15k mrr and getting vc offers. I'm 100% on prioritizing lifestyle and bootstrapping it all the way. Follow your gut, it's what's taken you this far.

I was recently recommended by more advanced bootstrappers to try to form a small closed mastermind (group of people with the same goals/values/stage in business). I suck at socializing but if you think it can help both of us to be in touch feel free to answer :)

Let's keep shipping!

Congrats! It's a great position to be in! I've been running a bootstrapped business for 6 years.

You're not nuts at all, it all comes down to what you want. I personally want to start a VC backed business next year. They're both different types of businesses, where you'll learn different skills and live life in different ways.

If you don't want to do any of that, then you've just answered your own question! Enjoy where you're at and don't worry about comparing yourself to what others think.

VC money is for the situation "we could grow so much by tacking this one opportunity that a bunch of money would help solve" or if you need the clout of having it, or the introductions or advice those investors would give.

If you want to grow slowly and focus on solving problems and are already doing well and at a pace you are ok with, then they don't have what you need.

I love the philosophy of bootstrapped companies, and would love for there to be more of them out there to work for (on the employee end), and a healthy ecosystem of them to compete in (rather than just being immediately eaten alive by whatever VC wants to throw money at).

If you can make it work for you, and you're happy, do that thing. Chasing money at all costs is a very different path than what appears to motivate you, but is what VC would require.

I agree with most comments that it’s ok to prefer not being VC funded. Looking at what other possible outcomes you may have by taking an alternate route: if you take VC money and the company self-destructs, you might end up with considerable capital (depending on how things ended) at the expense of the business and your clients.

But that’s a gamble. If you think the current MRR is sustainable then I would personally stick with it (I assume you’re a solopreneur)

Do you run it all by yourself or you have a team in place? If it is solo operation, perhaps middle ground would be to develop it into self functioning company first. There are many obvious reasons why you would want to do it (and why you wouldn't). Perhaps one less obvious one - you will get tired of it eventually. And if it can't survive without you - you will hate leaving it to die off and you will hate keeping running it...

I'm reminded of the fisherman story. Money is just a means to an end. Take some time, decide if you have a particular end in mind, and if you really need boatloads of money to achieve it. Otherwise, enjoy your freedom!

Fisherman story - https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican-fisherma...

IMHO, keep doing what you're doing! Not much better than being beholden to no one but yourself. I don't think it's weird at all to want to keep that going.

Personally, I'm pretty inclined to shy away from VC unless it's unavoidable for the domain the company is in (e.g. hardware companies, which tend to require an unbelievable amount of capital outlay just to survive development + manufacturing).

I've had several small successes that would pay for my life in the last years. When I lost interest I just sold and moved on.

Thing is I enjoy my life. I value free time and low stress way more than luxury. I have all the things I want and can afford everything I need.

My point is you are in the position to choose what is best for you. Don't follow the money just because money, except that's what you value most.

Don't say "No". Just tell the interested parties that you are not looking for funding or M&A at this time. At present you are concentrating on building according to the roadmap you already have. Once you are in need of money for further growth, you will certainly give them a call. You will be keeping then in your contact list.

That should help you keep the channel open for future.

Not weird. You just gotta build a shit ton of MOATS around the product. Its not easy but its also not an unreachably hard thing to do.

I'd have MOAT as a top 3 priority, basically constantly asking myself how can I make it as close to a category of one as possible.

Put it this way, opportunity doesn't strike often so when it does its your moral responsibility to grab it and put yourself in a position of strength.

As you say it, it might not last forever. VC startup is a more recognized "unit of business". Equally, VC objectives may be different than yours and they may spoil the dream for you.

It's a choice of being your own, maybe small rocket, and strapping yourself to another, bigger rocket, which is going roughly up, but maybe not where you want it to. Either can explode, but in different ways...

If you’re happy, continue to enjoy your bootstrapped success and the lifestyle you’ve created. Sounds wonderful.

If it starts to become unenjoyable, or if you’re not capable of running it anymore, there will be plenty of companies willing to acquire it.

Consider coaching a wing-person so you can hand over the reins when the time comes. You don’t wanna be the single point of failure.

Not everyone wants to follow the Silicon Valley Model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHR2py46co4

Find a group of likeminded bootstrapped founders who can support you in your journey. It's easier when you don't feel alone..

> I'm enjoying the lifestyle of "solve client's problem, client pays me money, innovate, iterate". It probably won't last forever, but it's simple and it feels authentic.

Then carry on.

We bootstrapped our company all the way even though we tried to raise VC money but failed. However if you keep grinding and can manage growth there is a clear path how you can become successful without external funding. We got acquired after 2.5 years without looking for an exit.

Sorry for the dumb question, maybe this is just my english skills falling short: What does MMR mean?

And to answer the question even though I have no experience being in a such a position nor running a business: I would probably keep running it myself as long as it gives meaning and is driven by your passion

If you want to go this round, find someone who can help/coach you. VCs and boards, in particular, need to be adequately managed. This is no rocket science but requires some experience managing stakeholders. It’s a “game” you need to know how to play.

What you are doing is the normal (non-startup) way of founding a business.

Don't take money unless

1. You really need it 2. You feel the VC can give you something nobody else can

When you take money from an investor you are selling YOUR own equity in turn reducing your ownership.

Borrowing money from someone comes with a lot of risks. The question is whether the risks outweigh the benefits for your situation.

Also, it's very much okay to ignore financial advice from friends.

That sounds fantastic! Making good money solving problems for people and enjoying it is pretty much the dream right?

if a VC takes 10% for $2M or whatever is appropriate at whatever valuation then as long as it is less than 50% or less than what the founder holds in shares or as long as founder shares have more in voting rights then why should the founder not take the money? They'll still be in control, no?

I'd sell to be set for life and start another bootstrapped project but with more money.

I had a job like that for 20 years. Wouldn’t change anything in retrospect. It’s a beautiful life.

How do these VC firms find you?

VCs don’t want you to know that you can start a business without them.

May a well post a link to your company…

Enjoy!

If you get outside funding, you lose control. Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple Computer company which he founded, because it went public and sold stock and all stockholders are then owners for their shares. The board of directors, which represents the shareholders, basically fired Jobs (sidelined him I think, and he quit).

So if Steve Jobs can be fired, anyone can.

However, depending on what you want, it can be fine. Steve Jobs did have billions of dollars when it went public. Nothing wrong with cashing out, if that's what someone wanted to do. Probably without funding, 99% sure he would never have turned Apple into the huge success it is today...the most valuable company in the world.

Nobody can see the future, and maybe your $15,000 MRR goes down to $200 MRR in a year, who knows? Maybe it goes up to $30,000 in a year, who knows? Maybe if you get a VC, it goes up to $10 million MRR. Maybe they sell it to Facebook (or whomever) for $1 billion, and you wind up with $300 million, and Facebook tries to run it a year and shuts it down. Maybe the VCs just tank it after a year because they suck. Maybe with VCs, you will grow great and without them, someone bigger company will swoop in and complete hard and take all your future prospects because they market hard.. Maybe, maybe, maybe. There are a thousand scenarios.

The other thing is that taking off like a rocket ship to the stratosphere is completely different set of skills than what you are doing now, which I don't know if you have the skills to transition from where you are now to what is required to grow like hell. Maybe you might have to hire 240 people a year, 20 people a month, onboard them, fire some, know what kind of benefits to give, manage them, get a CFO because now you're making millions per month and you have to stay on top of that, you have to have meetings all the time with the VCs and other people who have nothing to do with the day-to-day running of the company, publicity, press, all kinds of stuff like that. It goes on-and-on. And to be sure, some people can do that, Zuckerberg as one example. But can you, that's the question.

Personally, personally, I would never use a VC-type thing, because fuck them. There might be a few good VCs, but there's a zillion VCs, and they all are different. Depending on the VC, they can either be hands-off or they can be up your ass every week wanting to know how their investment is going, and everything in between. They might make you go in a different direction than your vision is, just because they think what they think is better than what you think, which 100% it is NOT. Only one out of a hundred investments make money for VCs, so they don't know crap about what will work and what won't. They just play the statistics - 99 bad investments, and one that makes a billion dollars to cover the bad investments. This is how it is.

I think that if a company has a high margin product, then getting VC money is not good. You can bootstrap if you have high margins. If you have low margins product, then you need investers.

Good luck to you.