This is an entirely valid model, and many startups would be better served by following it. Still, the whole point of (larger) VC funding rounds is facilitate rapid growth, far more than 40% year over year. There's no contradiction between embracing bootstrapping/seedstrapping where it works, and VC funding for the cases with hyper-growth potential.
Good luck avoiding every single venture-funded company. Can you give an example of such a "monopoly"? Vercel? They have plenty of competitors, all they are doing is charging a premium for convenience. There will always be alternatives to any given tool if you don't like the costs. Seems your problem is with capitalism and not this particular startup.
Just my 2c as a startup guy - this is patently absurd. VC's would not just write checks for millions again after such huge losses. Many, many startups would shut down and the entire startup/VC ecosystem would be devastated.
Hmm can't say I entirely disagree with them on that one. I mean it's clearly not a harmful phrase but it definitely is a useless one.
It carries almost zero information. Who is going to read "trigger warning" and think "oo they know that I'm highly sensitive about this specific unknown subject. I don't want to get triggered, I'll stop!"
Contrast it with something like "spoilers" where everyone agrees on what it means and people generally really don't want to read spoilers.
