I get the thrust of the message, but there is significant nuance involved. While painted in a negative light, John has valid concerns. The $11MM was a sticking point. Why? Was it an over ambitious valuation that did significantly eat into your cap table? Based on a quick reading, if you're properly germinating your rounds and limiting size to 20% of total valuation, then are you setting up for either a down round later or over matched in equity? While John likely had larger issues present as demonstrated by his departure and competing entity, but it seems a bit brief to consider him broken over investment money disagreements. Again, I like the article and overarching topic, but the specific example seems to leave more questions than answers.