alt Hacker NewsIn my opinion, all companies that have some kind of "investor" always end up the same way: eventually, a paid sociopath is installed as CEO whose only goal is profit maximization. If the CEO were someone who valued noble ideals or principles above profit, the investors would quickly replace them with a more "optimal" person.
Replies
Your perspective is a common myth, as in business ones reputation and integrity ultimately determine the formalized credibility of your firm. This is true with consumers, supply chains, customs bond subprograms, and your partners.
i.e. people can only lie, cheat, and steal from people for a finite amount of time. It ultimately leads to competitive disadvantage, and repercussions.
In general many VC/Angle "investors" were just predatory loan scams, that could ultimately destroy the founders firm. Warning signs often include proposals to table personal assets, share dilution scams, equity siphon holes, and stock market IPO legal cons.
Using debt to grow is generally a bad long-term strategy, and positive cash flow is always king at any scale. If the firm can't make sales, than growth is just a fools errand.
In my opinion, the Zuckerberg story ruined a generation of business people. =3
> whose only goal is profit maximization
It’s really a trade-off. If you raise too much money, you have to at least on paper show growth. All the levers then are tuned for growth.
On the other hand, you risk loosing out in the market if you raise just enough to build a viable product and get initial customers with the goal of growing organically.
Market rewards the winners. Look at Wiz, they captured the cloud security market by raising huge capital and moving fast.
Open source route is probably the way to go if you want to build a product based on your foundational ideas. Helps drive adoption organically and hopefully discover a monetisation opportunity.