Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)

I hope that’s a sobering thought.

Example ^^^

Perhaps because of this vary reason companies that have survuved for 3-4 years with their initial investors generally gets subsequent rounds of investment a bit easily.

–
Best,
Ashish Chamoli
Business Profile. http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashishchamoli

if you take as given that for the most part, CEOs (founders of venture-backed startups or otherwise) tend to be geared to operate best in certain company size ranges.

some folks are great at getting a founding team together.
some folks are great at getting first product built.
some folks are great at getting first revenues
some folks are great at scaling out and building to $5, $10, … million of revenue
some folks are great at running profitable businesses through periods of steady growth (at 10mm, 20mm, 100mm, 1bb, and up…)
virtually nobody is good at all of these things (and no, bill gates and steve jobs are nowhere near typical)

since everyone’s goal is to see the company hit these major milestones as quickly as possible, and if we take as given that most people can’t operate effectively through all these ranges of execution, then here’s the point:

EVEN WHEN THINGS ARE GOING WONDERFULLY, the business can outscale the founding entrepreneur/ceo.

This is only a bad thing if you’re a founding ceo/entrepreneur whose sole desire is control of a business. If that were the case, you shouldn’t have raised money in the first place!

That’s the hidden conceit in most of the “VC investors = founding ceo replaced = bad” arguments — that many founders secretly care more about building a company to control and a monument to their ego than they do about maximizing value and wealth.

A good warning about the down sides of VC funding.