Personally, I believe that for -most- software idea cases if I won't bootstrap it, then I don't believe in it enough, and/or can't get others to believe in it enough. I've been on the VC side and the boot side, spending your own money just hits different.
I'm exactly like this. I would never take VC (or similar) money for a couple of reasons, but this is the primary one.
If the idea is great enough for me to devote my life to, it's great enough to be able to do it without involving VCs.
That said, there are certain types of ventures (that I don't happen to be interested in) that require enormous sums of initial investment. That's where VCs can be genuinely useful.
But it isn't how most companies that take VC money are.
I think the issue is, for a lot of these people they don't have enough capital to bootstrap it.
Let's look at a large number of YC launches we see on here. Often they're 1-2 years after they joined YC. They took 1-2 years to get to launch with a team of employees. Sure, they had customers before the launch but really at that point it was still lets see what works and experiement and change ideas and whatnot.
I'm currently trying to bootstrap a source-available SaaS Subscription and Billing software. I've taken 3-months to work on the MVP by myself and still not got a MVP ready. (Almost there, working on final stuff like documentation and whatnot) Not many people can commit to that long before seeing if the idea is going anywhere. There are quite a few people who can't afford to work full time on their bootstrap idea for 3-6 months without an income.
When I'm starting a business, I view it as an exercise in delayed gratification. I'm not expecting to make any money in the early stages. Instead, I'm expecting to make up for it in what I make in the later stages. It's an investment in that sense.
Seeing growth, and seeing the company (not necessarily me personally) developing an income are important things through the whole deal, from the beginning through maturity.
Absolutely - when me and my team spend $50k to experiment (which is chump change for a funded company) and it fails, that hurts. It's coming out of my pockets. And because of that, I remember it and my team remembers it.
But it's also allowed us to focus solely on the problems our customers actually have and will spend money for. It forces service/product-market fit before attempts to scale.
We are a services business so it is different than SaaS, but same principles apply.
There are benefits to bootstrap and benefits to funded. I feel as if bootstrapping first is a great way to learn the lessons needed to be successful when you do something funded later on.
I agree. I also want to add that this isn't me saying VC doesn't have a role, it's more that I view VC as more useful when it comes to a proven product that must now scale workforce/infra.
> software idea cases if I won't bootstrap it, then I don't believe in it enough, and/or can't get others to believe in it enough.
On the flip side, if you can't convince someone whose job it is to give out money to give you money, do you feel confident you can convince someone else to pay for your product? For me, getting VC buy in is proof that someone else thinks that there is money in the idea.
> if you can't convince someone whose job it is to give out money to give you money, do you feel confident you can convince someone else to pay for your product?
You should be able to bootstrap to at least several thousand dollars in MRR, which derisks the business enough for VCs to fund you. If you're pitching purely on an idea, it's no surprise VCs won't fund that, they're taking more risk.
Bootstrapping refers to not taking outside capital; you can bootstrap and grow simultaneously and indeed, that's what you should be trying to do anyway.
