I liked the article, especially the point you make about playing to people's differing strengths, but I'm curious about the above remark. To "properly" do three 37S style companies, I think you'd have to spend some significant time on each one to see where it turns out. They didn't get big until years after they started. You spent three or four years on three different projects?
Also, I'll second the recommendation for 'Crossing the Chasm', it's pretty good.
I would call 3-4 years long term, especially in the internet world, and hence expect to see a payout in this period. The same applies to most bricks-and-mortar business.
Also, if you got bored with the venture, it was obviously not growing fast enough. Fast growing businesses always present a variety of new challenges that easily occupy you (at least for a few years) and can keep you entertained, exicted, puzzled, stressed, etc., but never bored.
Settlers want to stay in for the long haul. Bootstrapping - the kind that David advocates, where you focus on building a long-term, sustainable business - is thus more suited to their temperment.
Which makes it badly suited to the pioneer temperment, which I discovered when bootstrapping: I got bored after three or four years on the same venture. But if you want the upside, you have to stick around, because it only pays out over the long term.
Though perhaps settlers are probably better off either working within an established organization, or buying an existing business to run. In which case I can see why the point of the second half of my post might have come out a little muddy.