But when YC invested $120k for 7% equity, we typically didn't call all those startups like Dropbox/AirBNB etc "bootstrapped companies". And $180k for 2 founders is more than YC's previous terms.
>If one further gatekeeps the label with
It's unfair to call it "gatekeeping" rather than a case of confusing many readers with a headline that flips the meaning of "bootstrapping".
The meaning of which has been well established, both inside tech circles and outside, to mean starting a business without raising any outside capital.
Why do we want to suddenly stretch the meaning of bootstrap? The compelling story here would have been "how we created a SaaS business with 1M ARR with only seed funding", and I'd still have read it. That is something worth being proud of, why is bootstrap better?
Because VCs increase the risk that a company will turn to shit.
It would be best to explain this. Like I mentioned, why not plainly explain that they did all this with just seed money? That's a really amazing accomplishment in and of itself, and nuance is something that can be explained.
Not to mention, trying to stretch the meaning here is trying to glob a positive onto something that didn't earn it by fitting the definition. Again, why try to obfuscate the truth? Be proud of your background if you think you can be proud of it. Nothing wrong with that.
Just don't try and redefine something that already has concrete meaning. That's nearly the same thing, in my mind, as lying.
Bootstrapping is your ability to come up with money on your own or through loans etc which you are liable to pay back. If you don't you could lose your home. Investors don't come for your home when you lose their money.
$120k USD is a lot of money for many international startups.
10-20 years ago it was also a lot of money for US startups to receive early in their journey.
So this definition is pretty pointless.
> If one further gatekeeps the label with "but the founders need to invest this personally or it doesn't count..." that restricts the label to a very small segment of privileged individuals.
People for which $120k is money that people around them can just invest are a very small segment of priviliged individuals.
Another point: tinyseed also offers mentorship. From the FAQ:
> I don’t need the money, is TinySeed worth it just for the mentorship?
> Short answer: yes.
This message is not to knock on the people behind ScrapingBee. Bootstrapped or not, they have built a very profitable business, that's impressive and deserves praise. I just think calling it "bootstrapped" is not correct.
100% agree with you.
With TinySeed's round at "$120k for the first founder, $60k for the second, and $40k for the third" (https://tinyseed.com/program#program-faq) this is very much along those lines.
If one further gatekeeps the label with "but the founders need to invest this personally or it doesn't count..." that restricts the label to a very small segment of privileged individuals. And in a world where there's a (false) narrative of a "bootstrapped or VC backed" binary, that gatekeeping reinforces the notion that less privileged founders have no choice but to go the VC route or do nothing at all. I would hazard a guess that great ideas and great societal impacts have been lost as a result of this framing.