[TotoHorner]

No, being venture backed implies you're cashflow negative and you're relient on funding to live.

If you're a founder of a venture backed company, one of your main jobs is to build a pipeline of investors and constantly be planning for the next round of funding (that takes a significant amount of energy away from building the company).

With this strategy, you raise one round, then you go back to being similar to a bootstrapped founder where your only focus is to make the business sustainable and you're not spending mind-share trying to raise more money.

So it is a different way of building.

[stonogo]

No, being venture backed means a venture capitalist invested in your company. All that other stuff is just like, your opinion, man. It's extremely popular in Silicon Valley but that doesn't mean it's a fact, or even that it's particularly common in the rest of the world. In fact, I'd wager most venture-backed companies only raise one round, and this endless-money fever dream is the rarity.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Okay so your entire comment thread is really arguing about the semantics of what the phrase “venture-backed” means. I really don’t see what’s the gain by pursuing this line of discussion other than to be argumentative. Everyone clearly knows what everyone else means.

[em-bee]

I'd wager most venture-backed companies only raise one round, and this endless-money fever dream is the rarity

do you have some statistics to that? i'd expect that most startups that raise only once do so because they failed before they could raise again.

how many startups raise once and then become a successful profitable business without ever raising again? that's what "this third" way is about.