Why do you think VC control is bullshit?
Would be interested in stats on how normal this is or information about VCs' policies on it.
A couple of years ago when the VCs were throwing money around like crazy, I had this bright idea that perhaps all I'm ever going to need is a single round of funding. Use the money to put the company on a modestly profitable track, cut the head count, cut the cloud costs, eliminate the office, and cruise along indefinitely. Just like passive income, but on a corporate scale.
The reason this doesn't work is that the market changes very, very quickly in our industry. You can't just put your app on cruise control and expect a consistent ARR forever. As soon as some other VC finds out that you aren't making an "optimal" use of your money, they'll invest in a competitor who will eat you alive for breakfast.
This is why we should never trust anything that isn't in writing. No matter how many times someone promises to "do good by you" there will be a moment where that promise won't mean a thing or will be interpreted to have meant something different.
So if the salary isn't decent, better to refuse the job rather than hope the stocks will eventually compensate you for the missed salary.
> Remember when I wrote earlier that the VC dudes definition of “making everyone happy” after investing in your company doesn’t mean making it profitable? So now you might ask: Okay, so what do my VC investors want? ... They want to make a lot more money.
> ...
> Now, all of this might be none of your business, you might think. But it is! Because now the inevitable consequence, once you’ve taken VC funding, is that the objective of your company has changed: You’re no longer building your company the way you like it. You’re building your and the VCs company so that they can sell it, for a price higher than the one they paid. There are no alternatives. The course is set. You’re building to sell.
Why? Why do you have to respect the VCs' desires? Why can't you take VC funding, then use it to build a company that yields modest returns and live a comfortable life running it (and paying modest dividends to the VCs that over a few years return their investment)? Doing so would (I presume) not constitute any kind of breach of fiduciary duty, so what right can the VCs possibly have to enforce their preference for a more aggressive strategy?
People commenting on startups often imply - like in the quote above - that VC investors ultimately control any business they invest in, and not the founding CEO, even when that founding CEO holds the majority of the voting stock. This strikes me as bullshit. At least, nobody ever spells out the mechanism of control, and their inability to do so makes me think they don't know what they're talking about.
If I'm right that the narrative of VC control is bullshit, then what's the alternative explanation for why CEOs so often choose to pursue aggressive growth and sell their "babies"? Simple: the CEOs themselves want big money. It's not that the evil VCs are forcing the CEOs to do something they'd rather not do. It's that the VCs and CEOs are aligned in their objectives in the first place.