I would take this a step further: VC funding requires fast growth.
When you take VC funding, you're put onto an 18-month cycle: 12 months to grow your KPI's, then 6 months to raise the next round of funding.
Remember, the VC business model is 9 out of 10 investments fail and the last one makes at least 10x returns. Your probable failure is built into their spreadsheets, and if you don't believe/can't execute your 10x hockey stick story, they're going to cut you out at month 16. 2x growth is failure. 4x growth is an acquihire into another one of their portfolio companies (with the 4x profits going to their liquidation preferences, not to you). 7x growth and maybe they'll toss you a (dilutive) "bridge round" to buy you another 4-6 months.
VC funding is great if you're willing to commit to that game, but make sure rapid growth at all costs is the game you want to play. "Lifestyle business" is often used as a pejorative around here, but the reality is the average founder can make out just as good if not better owning all of a smaller pie than a down-round-diluted large pie.
If you want to play the VC game, understand the constraints and requirements you're committing to. It's a tool, and just like any tool, make sure you're using it for the right job.
I wish you made that post as a top-level reply instead of a reply to my post. The simple way that you explain growth requirements is extremely clear and important to know.
Not to invalidate your experience, but from what I've seen the highly upvoted people on HN are more accepting of "lifestyle business" and have more respect for work/life balance than the average startup founder
If things are going great, your previous investors will want to exercise their follow-on participation clauses (lets them put more money to maintain their percent stake at same terms as the new investors). Although lack of participation isn't necessarily a red flag (there are legit firm-specific business model reasons not to follow-on even if things are going good), it might still raise eyebrows ("if this is so great, how come your other investors aren't participating?").
Good investors open you up to their networks. If they're not taking your calls nor making intros to later-stage investors, that's a really bad sign (there still is an incentive to continue the game so portfolios look better even if things are just okay, so this one's hard to judge).
When things aren't looking good, they might pressure you to sell so they can cut their losses. Maybe they'll bring in a new CEO who's job it is to sell the company (that's why they demand board seats).
When things are really bad, they can pull out any remaining money. I haven't experienced this one and don't really understand the mechanics, but maybe someone else can chime in?
When you take VC funding, you're put onto an 18-month cycle: 12 months to grow your KPI's, then 6 months to raise the next round of funding.
Remember, the VC business model is 9 out of 10 investments fail and the last one makes at least 10x returns. Your probable failure is built into their spreadsheets, and if you don't believe/can't execute your 10x hockey stick story, they're going to cut you out at month 16. 2x growth is failure. 4x growth is an acquihire into another one of their portfolio companies (with the 4x profits going to their liquidation preferences, not to you). 7x growth and maybe they'll toss you a (dilutive) "bridge round" to buy you another 4-6 months.
VC funding is great if you're willing to commit to that game, but make sure rapid growth at all costs is the game you want to play. "Lifestyle business" is often used as a pejorative around here, but the reality is the average founder can make out just as good if not better owning all of a smaller pie than a down-round-diluted large pie.
If you want to play the VC game, understand the constraints and requirements you're committing to. It's a tool, and just like any tool, make sure you're using it for the right job.