FOUNDERS: WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MORON SIGNS UP FOR THIS?!? VC was already a horrible deal for the Founder. If this is how the game has changed, I am even further emboldened that the bootstrapped path is the best path for MOST people in this game. Unless what you do is highly capital-intensive, you should avoid this “changed game” like it’s the plague. The VC game was already bad: a 90% chance you'd kiss a decade of your life goodbye and walk away with nothing but an education. This new game is meaningfully worse in terms of probability-weighted financial success for YOU, the Founder. I post here because I want people to realize that what I do is an option. I didn't know it was possible until I found a podcast episode in 2017 with Ross Andrew Paquette from Maropost, who dropped enough info for me to back into the fact that he had a $30m ARR biz dropping $20m to the bottom line, and he owned all the equity. I had two epiphanies that day: 1/ that seemed like a better life for the founder than any other SaaS I had heard of, and 2/ it seemed much more attainable than hundreds of millions of ARR. So I became obsessed with Ross, tried to figure out how he did it, copied what made sense for my business, and fast forward 10 years and we're not quite there ($32m ARR, $15m run-rate profit), but we're close, and I'm more optimistic than ever about growing our profitability. People always ask me what mistake I see young Founders make the most. It’s raising money, and it’s in two different situations. Situation 1: they're at $1m ARR, growing 2-3% per month, and think money will speed that up. It won’t. ZERO percent chance. The only thing that speeds up a startup at that stage is more disruptive product + more disruptive marketing. Neither has anything to do with money. Yet they raise from people who think or say they are VCs, and enter the world of pain of the treadmill of capital without growth. Situation 2: getting to $10m ARR quickly and raising, thinking your TAM is bigger than it is. I made this mistake, but thank GOD we were so profitable that I didn’t actually raise, I just grew my team from 13 to 60 in 60 days, burned through the TAM in 9mo, hit a wall at 100mph, and for the second time in my career fired everybody I hired in that delusional frenzy. When you take money at that point, you don’t have that option. You are forced to try to widen the TAM, you build a bunch of shit no one wants, and you enter the world of pain of the treadmill of capital without growth. I want to be your Ross Paquette. This game isn’t easy. VC or not, you have to create disruptive products with disruptive marketing to win. That’s the only way you’ll grow. So, WHY NOT do it without selling your soul to a game you only have a 10% chance of winning? I PROMISE grinding your profitability higher from $15m 12 years into the game is amazing, and you have a WAY higher chance of getting there than going $0-$100m in 9mo. Fuck Lovable. Stay small. And keep building.

Aug 14, 2026 · 5:14 PM UTC

42
15
274
49,147
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked
Replying to @RetentionAdam
anything Harry’s says should be taken with. grain of salt cause he’s a bit of a dumbass
2
17
606
Replying to @RetentionAdam
great post
7
555
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I am convinced somebody told Harry “all press is good press” because an otherwise level-headed dude has been posting increasingly moronic takes
2
210
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Alternative hypothesis, Harry is a moron.
1
86
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Nothing has changed. VCs always want the fastest growing opportunity. The Airtable example shows you might not have enough time. @HarryStebbings
1
111
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Check how Mailchimp and Basecamp bootstrapped everything as well.
56
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Harry only invests in startups that raised tons of capital and are a "safe" bet for his investment. He's perspective is skewed towards winning safety, next to big VC names. Obviously you don't believe in that yourself so why fuel the same biased, destructive narrative line?
10
978
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Avoid VC at all costs. At worst, take seed and no negative rights and build as if it’s your last dollar in. Never give up control to someone making 40 bets trying to scratch a rocketship. Make $30m and chill more. Life is easier without lame board members either uninformed views (over 98% of VCs)
11
480
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Fair play to Harry for being honest. @LSEplc growth market AIM complements + competes with VC/PE. Everyone invests in ORDs. Half yearly vs quarterly reporting. No SoX. Build anywhere and list here for growth capital + liquidity. Global investors. $15-20m ARR is healthy entry
1
1
5
548
Replying to @RetentionAdam
100% this. The cost of building a company, whether it is $1m, $10m or $100m, is a lot less today and also achievable with a lot fewer team members. The VC numbers don't work out in the founders' favor for most founders. VCs do the math on enterprise value all the time. Founders should do the same.
5
452
Replying to @RetentionAdam
he has to maintain his brand! he's the blitzscaling guy (before him it was reid hoffman) he's specifically looking for psychopaths. there's plenty of other vcs out there who have a very different vibe...
5
636
Replying to @RetentionAdam
1,2,3 everyone say F VC's
4
519
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Even Harry doesn't believe what Harry posts.
3
338
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Different strokes. Some founder would be estatic to get to $50M ARR. Others have a $500B vision and $50M is a waypoint. The latter requires capital. And capital requires the latter.
2
331
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Harry is unfortunately over-shooting. He wants to become a strong voice to play with the big boys but he gets it completely wrong. Feels like influencer-vibe - very bad.
2
235
Replying to @RetentionAdam
the profitability over hypergrowth take is so underrated. owning 100% of a $15m profit biz beats owning a sliver of a $100m ARR treadmill that might implode. slow and profitable ages way better than it looks on paper
2
502
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I find there are only two real situations where makes sense to raise. 1. You cannot deliver all the demand you are already getting (this means you already figured out marketing and sales) 2. You need a real infrastructure in order to START operating, in which case, the game is completely different from the beginning and any X advice won’t serve to you.
2
630
Replying to @RetentionAdam
This is VC porn.
1
186
Replying to @RetentionAdam
the VC model needs you to believe $100m ARR is the minimum acceptable outcome meanwhile a $5m ARR business throwing off serious cash is sitting there like “am i invisible”
1
35
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I think anyone who is trying to be a founder is well aware of these options. Revenue and profitability generate enterprise value (not VC $$). The goal of VC financing is to generate revenue and profitability faster only.
1
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I like you 👏🏼
211
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I see a future where we’re all creators, supporting each other, sharing, growing, without having to sprint to a billion in a year just to live a comfortable life.
38
Replying to @RetentionAdam
The whole idea of founding sth is you want to have freedom in your life, VC are handcuffs with constant pressure working on your nerves. Just build sth cool🚀
250
Replying to @RetentionAdam
If I can bootstrap from 1 to 75 million with no outside money, why would I need a VC?
72
Replying to @RetentionAdam
it always comes down to whether the capital actually makes the business better ? if you’re already growing, profitable, and have a real path to a great company, giving up ownership and taking on pressure to chase a much bigger outcome can be a terrible trade
341
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Absolutely ridiculous take (on Harry’s part)
38
Replying to @RetentionAdam
If you did these numbers without raising a ton of capital and diluting yourself you would be immensely rich
150
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Omg finally someone said it, I don’t find anything wrong with VC money but I think burning founders for your own greed is dumb and I totally agree that if someone can self fund do it
60
Replying to @RetentionAdam
The truth is the VCs are out for themselves and their game is growth at all costs. Too many VC funded companies lose their soul after getting VC money so ask yourself as a founder what game do you wanna play.
49
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Feels like both are true: the bar for venture-scale went up, and the number of companies that actually need venture went down. Worth knowing which one you are before taking the money
23
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I just don’t know if you can either though
153
Replying to @RetentionAdam
I agree, but fuck Lovable, no, I use them, and I like them
181
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Totally agree, thought I was the only one who felt this way when I read the Linkedin post. It's starting to feel like a scam now
159
Replying to @RetentionAdam
Something I really had to hear. Thanks! A lot of people were pushing me in the VC direction
541