I'd also add something to the general topic. I never expected to sell my company and I think that actually helped. I drew a salary and kept my finances distinct from the legal entity that was the company. As it was I was the only owner, there were no investors to please, so profits went into growing and securing the business. Note: I consider sharing the profits with employees to be part of business growth and security.
That meant I had complete ownership and a healthy business, without much real debt. This was attractive and it was quite surprising, sort of, when the offer came in. It was only sort of surprising because there had been a few rumors about it.
So, I'm of the mind that the mentality drove the process and the process influenced the results. Of course, there is survivorship bias and I'm just a single data point.
Have you seen any correlation to the "no pressure"/generous aspect of your investments to the success or failure of said investment? My feeling is that the lack of stress attached to the investment may make it easier for the founder to achieve their goals. No anxiety about failure to pay you back = no self fulfilling prophecy. Probably depends on the founder.
That sounds noble. But, concretely, you want to help people make SaaS products like Storemapper (mentioned in the article)? I don't want to sound demeaning, but is that really such a noble goal?
When I started there were zero angel investors and next to zero VCs. Things have got a lot better, but we still have a long way to go.
Sure he's not curing cancer but there is a tremendous amount of nobility in his future actions.
Look beneath the surface my friend :)
That comes across as a pretty negative thing to say, the implication you're hinting at and not saying in a forthright manner.
Noble goal is an inherently subjective concept. Your definition of that, will vary from everyone else. It makes very little sense to challenge someone's actions on that basis.