Are you really considered “bootstrapped” if you take on funding? Even if it’s a year’s runway, still seems odd to call it “bootstrapped.” But then again, maybe I just have a narrow view of what bootstrapping is. I view it as using your own money (often from the business if possible) to fund your company’s growth. Would love to hear others thoughts?
Maybe some terms need to be changed. I've watched some bootstrappers once they've reached product market fit raise a single seed round and that's it. Maybe bootstrapped+ ?
Likewise I hate the condescending term lifestyle business. That might fit a barbershop but does it also define a $100 million dollar software business?
> [...] but does it also define a $100 million dollar software business?
It depends on the type of software business.
Technically, a lifestyle business is just one that is not expected to ever go through a high growth phase. So a $100M SaaS is probably not a lifestyle business (high growth is at least potentially possible, unless the TAM is too small), but a $100M enterprise software VAR probably is a lifestyle business.
This is a common misconception. A lot of role-model bootstrap startups got a small, but crucial, investment at the beginning to focus on their endeavor without to worry about bills all the time. A famous one is Basecamp (https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-deal-jeff-bezos-got-on-baseca...).
