I like how according to Silicon Valley, a "Founder" is a person that has borrowed capital from VCs. I live in Silicon Valley and there are more businesses here that are not backed by VCs than otherwise. Tens of thousands of small businesses who work as hard as the top dogs sucking up to VCs, yet they're just businesses with owners, not "Startups" with "Founders". Some people still call Dropbox, Airbnb and Uber as "Startups". I am a little annoyed by this just like I am annoyed by buzzwords of today - AI, crypto (bonus points if you throw in the term - supply-chain), and of course, the new kid on the block - "Quantum".
Do you guys not see this and introspect once in a while?
I don't think anybody in Silicon Valley would say the _definition_ of a Founder is someone who takes VC money.
All companies require capital to operate. All capital has a cost. In many high growth companies, the amount of time it takes to build a product and go to market has a significant effect of how much market share that company can acquire. Selling equity or taking on debt is how many companies can reduce that time and acquire more market share.
It just happens to be that the companies Silicon Valley is most interested in are companies that have to raise capital this way, with very very few exceptions.
Now more than ever, VCs will happily tell a a founder "your business is not a business that fits with the VC model well, don't raise VC money." The VCs who say that do not think the people they are are saying that to "aren't founders" - their business just doesn't need VC investment.
