i.e. people can only lie, cheat, and steal from people for a finite amount of time. It ultimately leads to competitive disadvantage, and repercussions.
In general many VC/Angle "investors" were just predatory loan scams, that could ultimately destroy the founders firm. Warning signs often include proposals to table personal assets, share dilution scams, equity siphon holes, and stock market IPO legal cons.
Using debt to grow is generally a bad long-term strategy, and positive cash flow is always king at any scale. If the firm can't make sales, than growth is just a fools errand.
In my opinion, the Zuckerberg story ruined a generation of business people. =3
That’s why you use you initial limited window to establish conditions where you don't need to compete, remembering competitive disadvantage a non-concern.
I have seen it happen, but usually irrational "winners" also evidentially become losers in a year or two. I think it is related to folks that compulsively gamble on other peoples ignorance, and eventually end up losing in court.
It is theoretically not impossible to "win" as a bandit, but the collateral financial damage to the people around you would be significant. Thus, the mean time before collapse would be proportional to the specified credit.
Best of luck =3
"The Rules for Rulers"
It’s really a trade-off. If you raise too much money, you have to at least on paper show growth. All the levers then are tuned for growth.
On the other hand, you risk loosing out in the market if you raise just enough to build a viable product and get initial customers with the goal of growing organically.
Market rewards the winners. Look at Wiz, they captured the cloud security market by raising huge capital and moving fast.
Open source route is probably the way to go if you want to build a product based on your foundational ideas. Helps drive adoption organically and hopefully discover a monetisation opportunity.