Broken Duck Media Logo Broken Duck

About Services Products Resources
Why Most Software Startups Shouldn’t Raise Money

Why Most Software Startups Shouldn’t Raise Money

By Craig June 20, 2025 Blog

Most software startups don’t need venture capital. This guide walks through the real trade-offs, including dilution, misaligned growth, and why bootstrapping might be a better path.

Introduction: The Fundraising Myth That Trips Up Most Founders

Venture capital has become a rite of passage in the startup world. Founders are encouraged—sometimes pressured—to build pitch decks before products, chase term sheets before traction, and believe that raising money is the sign of “making it.” But the truth is far less glamorous: most software startups not only don’t need VC—they probably shouldn’t take it.

Especially in the world of SaaS, B2B tools, and solo founder platforms, the fundamentals have changed. Infrastructure costs are low. Distribution channels are direct. And many successful products are now built and scaled with minimal overhead. Yet the startup ecosystem still rewards the optics of growth over the substance of sustainability.

This article isn’t about being anti-VC. It’s about being pro-founder. If you’re building something meaningful, your job is to ship product, serve users, and control your future. Not to spend six months chasing capital you may not need.

We’ll explore where the VC model comes from, why it often misaligns with software economics, and what founders really trade away when they raise prematurely. You’ll also see when VC makes sense—and what the underrated path of bootstrapping can give you instead. No ideology. Just a clear look at the real choices software founders face.

The VC Narrative Is Designed for a Different Kind of Startup

Venture capital wasn’t built for steady-growth, profitable software businesses. It was created to fund moonshots—risky, unproven ventures with a binary outcome: either massive success or complete failure. The original model traces back to mid-20th-century investments in semiconductors and biotech, where upfront R&D costs were enormous and success rates were low. Investors knew that for every 10 bets, nine might fail—but the tenth could return 100x.

This thinking still shapes the VC playbook today. Funds raise large amounts of money from institutional LPs (limited partners) with the expectation of delivering returns well beyond the public markets. To achieve that, they invest in startups with 10x–100x exit potential. That requirement fundamentally changes what kind of businesses they want to back—and how those businesses are expected to grow.

The Growth Mandate

Once a startup accepts VC money, the rules shift. The business is now part of a portfolio that needs to outperform. This means it’s no longer just about solving a problem or turning a profit—it’s about growing fast enough to become a meaningful line item in a fund’s return model. That growth imperative often leads to:

For SaaS founders in particular, this is where the disconnect starts. Sustainable SaaS businesses rarely grow like rocket ships, especially in niche or B2B verticals. They grow through steady iteration, tight customer feedback loops, and a relentless focus on churn. That’s not what VCs are usually looking for—because it won’t move the needle fast enough.

Misaligned Incentives

If your startup isn’t likely to hit a billion-dollar valuation, you’re a problem for the VC model. A $10M or even $20M exit might change your life—but for a venture fund, that’s a rounding error. This misalignment creates tension. What’s best for you as a founder (stable growth, product discipline, customer care) may conflict with what’s best for your investors (hypergrowth, headline metrics, fundraising optics).

Many founders don’t see this clearly until it’s too late. They raise a small pre-seed round, promising a “big vision,” and suddenly find themselves pushed into a new lane: faster growth, bigger team, bigger burn. Within 12–18 months, they’re back in the market trying to raise more money—often with limited real traction—because their operating model was built around external capital, not internal sustainability.

“Default Dead” and the Fundraising Treadmill

Paul Graham coined the term “default dead” to describe startups that won’t become profitable without raising more money. These businesses aren’t failing because of bad products or poor founders—they’re failing because their financial assumptions were built around permanent fundraising. In other words: if capital stops flowing, they die.

This is the hidden cost of adopting the VC narrative too early. Founders build to satisfy investor logic, not business logic. They prioritize valuation milestones over actual market validation. Instead of learning from users, they’re learning how to pitch. And the longer they go without a profitable, self-sustaining model, the more dependent they become on external capital to survive.

Venture capital is a tool. It works in the right context. But applying it to the wrong kind of business—especially early-stage SaaS—can do more harm than good. The narrative is powerful, but it was never designed for small teams, lean startups, or founders who actually want to stay in control.

Software Is (Often) Cheap to Start, Expensive to Mismanage

Building software has never been more accessible—or more dangerous if mismanaged. What once required a dev team, servers, and six-figure startup capital can now be done by a single technical founder with a laptop and a credit card. Infrastructure is no longer a gating issue. Services like Vercel, Supabase, Render, Cloudflare, and AWS Free Tier have turned deployment and scaling into a near-turnkey process.

This is the overlooked truth: you can build and launch a functioning SaaS product for under $1,000. And yet, many founders race to raise capital before writing a line of code. That’s not because they need the money—it’s because they’re mimicking the VC-funded playbook without considering whether it fits their business or capabilities.

The Solo Builder Era

In 2025, a solo developer can:

All without hiring a team or setting up a Delaware C-corp.

The result? MVPs that used to take six months and $100,000 now take two weeks and a weekend. This is especially true in B2B SaaS, analytics tools, CRM plug-ins, and developer platforms. These categories don’t require huge R&D or capital. What they do require is sharp execution and real user feedback.

Fundraising Often Leads to Overbuilding

Ironically, raising money early often kills this advantage. Once a startup has external capital, the pressure begins to:

You start designing a company, not a product.

Instead of 3 months shipping a useful MVP, you’re 9 months deep into a bloated v1 with no users and a burn rate that now forces a seed raise. That’s how cheap software becomes expensive software—not due to actual costs, but due to misaligned incentives and bloated roadmaps.

Examples of Low-Cost Bootstrapped SaaS

There’s a growing canon of founders who’ve succeeded by skipping the VC lane entirely:

These companies didn’t need capital. They needed focus. They were able to iterate quickly, find their users, and refine their products without answering to a board or hitting arbitrary metrics.

The Problem Isn’t Money—It’s Management

Money amplifies what you already are. If your product is already working, a raise can help accelerate growth. But if you’re still finding your footing, money often distorts priorities. Founders get distracted from talking to users. Teams grow faster than culture can support. Roadmaps become speculative rather than iterative.

This is why software is cheap to start, but expensive to mismanage. When you optimize for capital instead of clarity, you risk building something complex before it’s valuable. That’s how startups burn through hundreds of thousands with nothing to show.

The takeaway isn’t that money is evil—it’s that capital should come after clarity, not before.

The Hidden Costs of Fundraising

Raising venture capital might look like a badge of legitimacy, but what many first-time founders overlook is just how expensive that money really is—both financially and operationally. It’s not free fuel. It’s a high-interest loan on your focus, freedom, and control.

Time You Should’ve Spent Building

When you’re raising money, you’re not building. A typical early-stage fundraising cycle takes 3 to 6 months—often longer for first-time founders without an existing network. During that time, you’re crafting decks, booking meetings, polishing narratives, following up on intros, and revising your pitch. That’s time not spent talking to users, shipping features, or fixing churn.

Many founders burn their best product energy trying to impress VCs instead of validating with customers. And even if you do land a term sheet, it’s just the beginning of the compliance and reporting treadmill.

Accepting venture capital usually requires restructuring your company to fit investor-friendly templates—most commonly a Delaware C-Corp. This isn’t optional; it’s a requirement for most funds, especially if you’re eyeing U.S.-based capital. That means:

For a founder operating out of Thailand or Vietnam, it often means managing dual structures: a local entity to legally live and operate, and a U.S. entity to take investment and process payments. The complexity piles up quickly.

Giving Up Control Before You’ve Earned It

Even a $250K pre-seed round can leave you with diluted ownership and new stakeholders who have very different incentives than you. Pre-product, pre-revenue rounds often hand over 10%–25% of the company before anything is proven.

Worse: some investors add liquidation preferences, board control rights, or anti-dilution clauses that can hurt you in future rounds. You may feel like you’ve won something, but what you’ve traded away is the ability to pivot or grow on your own terms.

Milestones That Aren’t Yours

VCs need to justify their bets to LPs. That means pushing portfolio companies toward aggressive milestones—whether or not it aligns with your product maturity. You’re now operating on their timeline.

It’s not unusual to hear: “You need to 3x revenue this year or we can’t participate in your next round.” That can lead to forced decisions: pivoting markets, slashing prices to chase growth, hiring prematurely, or raising again before you’re ready.

The Founder Who Raised Too Soon

An oft-cited example on Indie Hackers is a founder who raised $1M at idea stage, hired a team, and spent six months building what turned out to be the wrong product. With no users and high burn, the company folded before finding PMF. The founder later wrote:

“If I had built it myself, I would have failed faster—and learned faster. But with money in the bank, I felt obligated to turn it into something big, even though I didn’t know what that was yet.”

The lesson: raising money doesn’t guarantee success—it often distorts it. Especially in software, capital is a multiplier. If you’re misaligned, it multiplies failure.

Venture Capital Changes the Game You’re Playing

Taking venture money isn’t just about getting resources—it’s about entering a different game entirely. One with different rules, different expectations, and different definitions of success.

You’re Building for Exit, Not Operation

VCs don’t invest for dividends or slow organic growth. They invest for liquidity events—an acquisition, IPO, or massive private sale. That means your business is no longer optimized for sustainability, but for scale and exit.

You might start with a mission to solve a niche problem for loyal users. But once you raise, the pressure starts: expand your TAM, move upmarket, build an enterprise sales team, and explore acquisition within five years. Your product roadmap changes to fit investor ROI models.

The Hiring Trap

VC-backed startups often hire in anticipation of growth—not in response to it. You’re told to staff up to “move fast,” even before revenue justifies the cost. This creates team bloat, cultural misalignment, and over-complicated processes before they’re necessary.

The builder-founder suddenly becomes the hiring manager. Instead of shipping features, you’re doing interviews, onboarding, handling payroll, and managing a team of 10 when you were more efficient at 2.

Culture Shifts from Craft to Coordination

Once outside capital enters the equation, you’ll feel it in the culture. Decisions need to be vetted, milestones need to be hit, updates need to be prepared, and transparency must be maintained. You are no longer the only stakeholder.

If you loved product, craft, and deep work—those moments shrink. You’re now accountable to board members who might have different instincts than you, especially in risk tolerance or go-to-market strategy.

Burnout Without Growth

Perhaps the most dangerous outcome is the founder who scales before they’re ready—then hits a wall. The team is bloated, churn is high, and the roadmap is confused. But you can’t downsize or slow down because you’ve already sold the dream.

That’s the reality of playing the VC game. It’s not inherently bad—it’s just designed for a very specific kind of startup. If you’re building a SaaS for 5,000 loyal customers and want to run it profitably for 10 years, VC isn’t just unnecessary. It’s often a threat.

When VC Does Make Sense

For all its pitfalls, venture capital isn’t inherently evil—or even misguided. It’s simply a tool designed for a very specific category of business. If your startup lives in that category, then raising VC may not just make sense—it might be necessary.

1. You’re Building Deep Tech or Infrastructure That Takes Years

If you’re working on a product that requires significant R&D investment before you can even bring a version to market—think biotech, advanced AI models, robotics, or climate tech—bootstrapping is rarely viable. These are capital-intensive projects with high technical risk, long development cycles, and potentially massive returns.

Take OpenAI in its early days, or companies like Anduril (defense tech), Cerebras (AI chips), or Commonwealth Fusion Systems (nuclear energy). These teams needed tens—sometimes hundreds—of millions before the first viable product.

Without VC or institutional capital, none of these ventures would exist. The timeline, talent requirements, and upfront costs are simply incompatible with bootstrapped economics.

2. You’re Playing a Winner-Take-All Game

Some markets don’t reward slow growth. They reward speed, user base accumulation, and network effects.

Uber didn’t become dominant because it had the best codebase—it became dominant because it scaled faster than any competitor. Same with Airbnb, Facebook, Stripe, and Doordash. These companies lived or died based on their ability to reach scale before anyone else.

VC was essential fuel for those blitzscaling strategies. If you’re building in a similar space—where being first or fastest gives you enduring advantage—then venture funding is often the only viable strategy.

Examples include:

Without fast capital, you lose the race before the race even starts.

3. Hardware or Supply Chain Complexity

Hardware companies often can’t follow lean startup principles in the early stage. Prototyping is expensive. Manufacturing is risky. Global shipping adds another layer of complexity.

Think of companies like Framework, Nothing, or SpaceX. These businesses needed to raise capital to build the actual machinery of their products—before they could test real-world usage. Even if you’re working on smaller form-factor devices (e.g. IoT), initial runs and certifications can cost six figures.

Here, venture funding helps you front-load risk and get to v1.0 without compromising your hardware design just to fit a bootstrap budget.

4. You Have a Scalable Plan—and You’ve Proven the Need

A surprisingly good time to raise is after you’ve bootstrapped your way to something that works. If you’ve got:

…then capital isn’t a lifeline. It’s a multiplier.

This is the “fuel on a fire” model. The product is already burning—you just want it to burn brighter, faster, and in more places. In this case, taking money means going from $10K MRR to $100K MRR in 12 months, not “buying runway” to find PMF.

5. You’re Okay With the Game You’re Signing Up For

If you’ve been through the venture process before—or you have a trusted co-founder who has—you may be fully aware of the tradeoffs. Some founders thrive in high-growth, high-pressure environments. They like the board meetings. They like the milestones. They want the scale and exit.

If that’s your temperament, and you know what you’re getting into, then VC can be a rocket. Just don’t confuse the vehicle with the mission.

The bottom line: venture capital is a powerful but specialized tool. If your startup falls into one of these categories—deep tech, network effects, hardware-heavy, or already scaling fast—it might be the only way to unlock your full potential. For everyone else, it’s often an expensive distraction.

Bootstrapping Is Underrated—Here’s What You Gain

Bootstrapping isn’t just about avoiding investors—it’s about controlling the game you’re playing. While venture-backed startups chase growth at all costs, bootstrapped founders enjoy a completely different set of freedoms, constraints, and rewards.

1. Full Ownership Means Full Control

When you bootstrap, you own 100% of your business (or close to it). You answer to yourself, your customers, and your values—not to a board of directors, lead investors, or growth benchmarks written into a term sheet.

There’s no dilution. No down rounds. No high-stakes meetings with partners who’ve never written a line of code.

If you want to keep your product small and focused, you can. If you want to take a break for a month, nobody is breathing down your neck. If you want to grow sustainably over a decade instead of sprinting for an exit, nobody’s forcing your hand.

This creative and strategic control is not a luxury in the bootstrapped world—it’s the norm.

2. Optionality: Pivot, Sell, Stay Lean

Bootstrapping gives you the ability to change your mind. You can pivot, rebrand, launch new products, or spin off side projects—all without needing board approval or restructuring your cap table.

If you want to sell early, you can. If you want to build a lifestyle business and draw profit instead of chasing unicorn status, you can. The business is yours to evolve as you see fit.

Optionality is a superpower that most funded startups don’t have. Once you’ve raised, you’re locked into a very specific path—usually one that only ends in a high-multiple exit or a shutdown.

3. Healthier Pace, Stronger Incentives

Bootstrapped companies are usually smaller, more efficient, and more sustainable. They can move slower where it matters (e.g., thoughtful product design, real customer feedback), and faster where it counts (e.g., fixing bugs, shipping value).

The team is typically more focused, too. Without the distractions of pitch decks, investor updates, and pressure to scale prematurely, everyone is aligned around the customer—not the next round.

This pace often leads to healthier teams, better products, and a more fulfilling founder experience.

4. Define Your Own Market, Timeline, and Success Metrics

When you bootstrap, you decide what success looks like. You don’t need to chase a $1B TAM if you can build a $1M/year business serving a niche audience with precision.

That freedom also means you’re not operating on anyone else’s clock. You don’t have to “exit” in five years. You don’t have to grow 20% month-over-month. You can iterate, refine, and build patiently—without sacrificing your life or compromising your mission.

Many great businesses were built exactly this way.

Final Verdict: Raise Only If You Can’t Execute Without It

The core question isn’t “should I raise money?” It’s “can I build without it?”

If you need capital to build core infrastructure, hire a team, or reach the starting line—raising might be necessary. But if you can ship something usable, validate demand, and earn your first revenue solo or with a co-founder, you owe it to yourself to explore that path first.

Here’s a short framework:

Bootstrapping isn’t easy—but it’s deeply aligned with how software gets built in the real world. Startups don’t fail because they lack capital—they fail because they spend too much, too early, on the wrong things.

If your fire is already burning, sure—add fuel. But if you’re still striking the match, do it on your own terms.

Alternative capital models worth exploring:

The goal isn’t to avoid capital. It’s to avoid dependency.

Own your product. Own your decisions. Build for the long run.