Founders

https://frame.weponder.io/api/polls/24289

Building something new. Host: /venturecapital /adventures /theitinerant

Is this assuming that you have two paths that will definitely lead to PMF? (ie, one with capital before, one without capital before)

Cause my answer is "whatever way leads most surely to PMF, do that"

building /bracket | hosting /greatbooks + /gray | ex-BCG, ex-PHD | poli + phil + econ

It assumes you have no idea (since that’s typically the case, even if you think capital is necessary) and want to prioritize keeping more of your business.

Oh, I'd want to change my survey answer from "Yes" to "Maybe".

Whatever scenario I believe lets us maximize chance to achieve PMF (ie, would rather have no investors than investors who are toxic to cause. But if investors are net neutral or better to cause, then id like to have bc they lengthen your time horizon.)

Toxic to the cause of trying to find PMF. Can take a whole lot of forms. eg: they demand a lot of maintenance or attention, they demand to have an impact on the direction in a way that isnt helpful, they leak information to others etc. Founders dont always listen to their gut when they have a sense on these things.

So yes, you can get in positions where you're choosing bt "no money" or "possibly toxic money". I'd take the first.

But whenever neutral or good money is available – within a target ownership % you set for that round (10% 20% whatever) – I think the right mindset is to lean toward doing it so you can get on with the important stuff, and give yourself more shots on goal to do it.

What does “toxic to the cause” mean to you?

Presumably no one would take capital from investors you know are toxic so is the default here “can’t raise capital from funds I want.”? 

It sounds like overall you will always prefer more capital v maintaining more ownership?