And before the bootstrapping community comes for me, I have genuine respect for founders who chose that path with full optionality. The ones who ran the numbers, understood the dilution math, and decided VC money would warp their business model. That's a legitimate, hard, respectable path.

But there's a different type. The ones who pitch, get passed on, and suddenly discover a deep philosophical conviction about capital independence. That's not a strategy. That's cope dressed up as a badge.

I've spent the last 7 weeks deep in investor conversations for Borong's fundraising. And I'll be honest, it's brutal, especially in the Southeast Asia region. The risk appetite here is fundamentally different. LPs in this region are more conservative, which means fund managers are more conservative, which trickles down to how they evaluate founders. You can have a great story, strong growth, real enterprise contracts and still get passed on because the market isn't “proven” enough yet.

What I've learned: profitability isn't just a milestone. In SEA, it's a signal that changes the entire conversation. It shifts you from “interesting bet” to “credible investment.” When Borong hits profitable last quarter (not adjusted EBITDA btw, actual profitable), I can feel the difference in how investors engage now.

So if you're fundraising in this market, don't fight the reality. Work with it. Get profitable first if you can. Then raise from a position of strength, not desperation.

And if you truly can't raise, that's okay too. Just be honest about it, even to the investors. Surprisingly, most VCs understood this, and they'll somehow help you in ways you might not be able to imagine :)

Back to all posts