It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with building a sustainable business while retaining full ownership. The notion that you absolutely need to accept funding is getting tired because it's not supported by facts and grounded in reality.
I am currently bootstrapping a business and I have been approached by VCs who asked me to please take their money. I have turned them down because, as I politely told them, I don't need it, AND I am not looking to simply flip the company some day (no sane investor will invest unless the company can be sold in some form and they get their money back). Some people may also wish to avoid having a boss, and if you think your VC is not your boss in some capacity at least, you're in for a rude awakening.
Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous. There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
> Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous.
It happens because either they had to make the decision and they accepted the money, worked for someone who has, or they are the VC who are offering the money and looking for deals. People usually project whatever they did as being a rational, right decion, and those who don't don't agree as being irrational.
Also, this forum is probably one of the most biased forums when it comes to startup "things", so I wouldn't get too upset about stuff you read here.
> There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
Nothing wrong with it at all; but keep in mind you are posting on the message boards of an organization (YCombinator) that is deeply invested in the Silicon Valley venture ecosystem. The "growth at all costs" mentality is bound to be quite prevalent among the posters on here as a result. It's just the audience that HN draws.
It's irrational for someone running a startup to be categorically against raising money. It's not for someone running a lifestyle business. A lifestyle business is not a startup.
A startup is a new business. It's not anything special.
It looks like you are falling for propaganda. When someone wants to purchase a car or a home, there's such a momentum behind the idea of financing that a customer who uses their own savings is viewed as odd... perhaps even a money launderer, yet it's perfectly normal.
I mention that because there's a similar momentum behind business financing. If you build software for a living, then you can build a new business with no overheads, no ties, no time limits, no favours, no budgets, no business plan and low risk. It's pure freedom to do what you want.
A successful startup in the eyes of VCs grows fast. It has to, so VCs have some hope of making a non-stupid return. Which is why we get all the drama around unicorns etc etc and more etc.
Does that mean that you, as a founder, have any obligation to play that game?
No. You. Do. Not.
If you choose not to, that's very much your choice. It gives you a number of advantages, including no loss of control over direction or everyday running, a very much lower danger of being fired from your own project, and a wider choice of potential investment sources when you've been running profitably for a while. (Are VCs the only money source in town? Not even close.)
And if you have a solid business model, it significantly raises your prospects of still having a business - and a job - when the unicorn hunter scene crashes and burns around you.
Which it inevitably will - possibly quite soon.
The disadvantage? If the business is seriously viable with many real customers and profits and such, you may to have to settle for being a multimillionaire instead of a billionaire.
African proverb: "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."
Startups are designed to go fast and cash out. The founders make a fortune and move on to something else, life doesn't really change for anyone else. A business with real longevity will go more slowly but everyone in the business will share in the ride.
The corner store and Snapchat are both businesses but they aren't the same. Saying this isn't the same as saying that startups are better, just that they are different.
Actually, in this market, it's smarter to take out a home mortgage, and invest the remainder. Mortgage rates are low. If it were the opposite, and mortgage rates were high, you'd have an argument, but that hasn't been the case in decades.
It's true in this market, but not true if, for example, the stock market crashes and/or we have a deflationary depression.
Not saying that's particularly likely, but avoiding debt does remove risk in such scenarios--if you never take on debt you can never go bankrupt, even if your upside is also lower. People make different choices about how to balance risk, reduce stress, etc. It only looks irrational when one person imposes their values on the decisions of another.
I am currently bootstrapping a business and I have been approached by VCs who asked me to please take their money. I have turned them down because, as I politely told them, I don't need it, AND I am not looking to simply flip the company some day (no sane investor will invest unless the company can be sold in some form and they get their money back). Some people may also wish to avoid having a boss, and if you think your VC is not your boss in some capacity at least, you're in for a rude awakening.
Calling someone's decision to avoid raising money irrational and attaching labels (morality?) is presumptuous. There are certain goals that are incompatible with accepting funding, such as: operating a lifestyle business, not reporting to anyone, freedom etc. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.