I’m wondering if the parasitism goes both ways in that founders exaggerate in order to gain benefits from investors and suppliers, but that these parties also gain from any founder who wants to play being forced to have “skin in the game” such that they can always be scapegoated if things explode too badly.
This seems to indicate mutual benefits for both founders and investors/suppliers ?
Which you acknowledged could be possible in the previous comment?
Although individual cases may still be net negative, it certainly possible that in aggregate it’s symbiotic.
So it’s not parasitic but symbiotic instead?
Symbiotic would be a mutually beneficial relationship. What I described is very clearly not that
This seems to indicate mutual benefits for both founders and investors/suppliers ?
Which you acknowledged could be possible in the previous comment?
Although individual cases may still be net negative, it certainly possible that in aggregate it’s symbiotic.