Is bootstrapping a superpower or a slow death in the AI era?
AI has made it easier than ever to build and ship with a small team and no funding- but is that a better playbook than raising VC?
I see it from both sides:
Getting to production, ramen profitability, etc. seems easier than ever. Yay bootstrapping.
Because it's so easy, getting blown out of the water by a VC-funded competitor also seems easier than ever.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Curious how others are thinking about it.👇
Replies
Depends on your goals no? What's the capital for? If you can build a lifestyle business (thinking of apps like @MacWhisper) that let you stay independent indefinitely... you don't really need to raise venture.
If you think you're solving something that can turn into a billion dollar business (which will necessarily require that you eventually graduate out of IC status), then perhaps you should raise some money...
@chrismessina A typically reasonable answer from Chris!
@chrismessina Great points. I guess building something that can't get to venture scale is the best way to not attract venture competition.
@steveb almost seems like AI could unlock an enormous middle class of hyper-customized software solutions, leading to enormous diversity, rather than consolidation around a small set of winners.
I mean, look at the Product Hunt leaderboard — AI has lead to an explosion of products, but most have few to zero users. They're using the same old playbook to build software and hoping to "go viral" or get big, whereas they could realize that they could start w/ an underserved constituency and build bespoke, lightweight solutions a million times over to hyper-fit to that audience's needs.
We're entering the hypersoft era of software!
Feeling this hard. I’ve been building solo with no funding—tools today really make that possible. Bootstrapping has been a solid path so far.
But yeah, I do think about what happens if a VC-backed team enters the same space. Hard to compete with that kind of firepower.
For now, I’m focused on control, sustainability, and learning as I go. But the trade-offs are real. Curious how others are handling this balance.
Virus Fight Club
Steve, you are absolutely right.
it's a kind of win some, lose some.
Bootstrapping gives founders more freedom and control, which is great but the problem is scale. Money still is the best way to do that.
When it comes to spending, when you are bootstrapping, you need to be a sniper, and when you are VC funded it's like if you have a lot of big guns available...
A combination might work well. Initially, you bootstrap until you find a PMF and have some revenue. Later, apply for VC funding when it's time to scale. Again, it depends on the business, of course.
Ah yes, the age-old question: bootstrapping in the AI era — is it a heroic underdog story, or just a slow-motion swan dive into irrelevance?
We’re bootstrapping. Which means we’re fueled by passion, caffeine, and an irrational belief that we don’t need a 50-person sales team or a paid Zoom account to ship something great.
Bootstrapping lets you move fast. No investor decks, no 3-week wait to change a button color. Just build, ship, repeat.
But... that VC-funded startup just hired Zendaya to explain their roadmap in a Super Bowl ad. So there’s that.
It’s a bit like showing up to a sword fight with a spork — but the spork is yours, and you whittled it yourself, and you’re weirdly good with it.
Would love to hear: has anyone else here been out-built or out-funded?
I think VCs are going to use indie vibe coded successes as radar screens to "enter markets" for different tools / systems / solutions.
The VCs typically have much, MUCH better distribution... so a copycat VC with decent speed but great distribution will beat the indie builders -- I fear.
- Ex-Wall St Investment Banker, now Builder
@matt__mcdonagh Exactly! Have you seen anyone use this playbook yet?