Nikolay: Hello, hello.

This is Postgres FM, episode number
105.

My name is Nikolay.

I'm the founder of Postgres.AI.

And as usual, my co-host is Michael,
the founder of pgMustard.

Hi, Michael.

Michael: Hello, Nikolay.

Nikolay: So you chose an interesting
topic.

Is it interesting?

I'm kidding.

But it's not technical at all,
right?

Michael: It depends on how far we
get into it.

Nikolay: Yeah.

So, we talk about startups, Postgres
startups, ecosystem maybe

for Postgres companies and new
companies, young companies.

We saw many of them launched in
previous years.

And recently, starting last year,
we started observing some of

them closing, which is natural
for startups.

Yeah, let's discuss this.

Michael: Yeah, sounds great.

I thought it might be interesting
for people.

I think not everybody pays as close
attention to this as yourself

and I do.

So I think there'll be people out
there that won't have heard

of a bunch of these companies.

I think it'd be really interesting
to discuss what some of them

are doing, what kind of categories
there are, how they run, what

kind of business models are popping
up, what problems they're

solving, that kind of thing.

But the reason I brought this up
now, I mean I'm kind of surprised

we haven't done this kind of thing
already, But the reason I

brought this up now is I saw a
tweet, maybe some other people,

it got a few hundred likes, I think
probably a few people in

the Postgres world have seen it
already.

I think it was a semi-serious prediction,
which was from a guy

called Dax Rad.

I don't know if I'm pronouncing
it right.

He's a bit of a joker online.

It does quite a few funny tweets,
but I think this was semi-serious.

And it was a prediction that over
the next 12 months, Postgres

startups are going to get decimated.

And that was the whole tweet, definitely
in character for trolling.

But I thought it was interesting
and funny.

And yeah, there were some funny
responses too.

But that prompted me to think,
what is the Postgres startup ecosystem

like right now?

Nikolay: I think it's, first of
all, it's serious, very serious.

And second, I think it's wrong
because it talks about next 12

months, not talking about what
already happened last 12 months.

I think It's already happened.

Because if you think like, even
if 3 startups closed, that means

they do have 30, right?

Because what does this word mean?

It means...

Michael: I did look it up.

I did look it up because that was
part of the replies.

But I think there are two definitions.

One is the kind of the strict old
school definition which was,

you know, from the Roman times,
1 in ten… KB – Punishment.

MH – …dies.

Yeah, exactly.

But I don't think that's what's
generally meant when the word

Nikolay: decimated is used in English.

It's not just dice.

Other 9 killed this guy.

This is how it was originally,
it was terrible, right?

Michael: Well, it was like

Nikolay: a group punishment.

One Random guy is killed by others,
right?

So this, I don't know why we discuss
it, it's not relevant maybe.

Michael: It's very relevant to
the tweet, right, decimated.

But I think the more normal definition,
the more normal use of

the word decimated means like a
whole, a lot of them will die.

Nikolay: Reduction, right?

Reduction of number of...

Big reduction.

Well, actually in the world of
startups, usually 9 of 10 die,

not 1 of 10, right?

It's vice versa.

Normally because lack of product
market fit or something like

that, bad execution and so on,
which usually looks like we cannot

raise next round, right?

But back to my idea, what happened
in the last 12 months.

I know at least 3 startups which
are dead now.

Did we have 30 startups before
that?

If we did, I mean, did we have
more?

I think no, actually.

Postgres-related startups.

Michael: It depends how you define
them.

And I think even some of the ones
you're talking about potentially

talking about weren't Postgres
only.

So it depends...

Nikolay: Of course.

Nikolay: Of course.

Nikolay: Of course.

The biggest, aiven.com from Finland,
I consider it a startup because

I remember they were super small
and then they skyrocketed and

raised...

They are Postgres related because
they started, I think, from

with Postgres and Kafka.

It's like an alternative to AWS services,
but multi-cloud like you.

A single interface to multiple clouds,
but including Postgres, right?

right?

And they had great Postgres materials,
and so on.

Michael: I think I misheard.

What was the name of the company?

How do you spell it?

Nikolay: Aiven.

Michael: Aiven.

It must be a different Aiven to
the one I'm thinking of because

they seem to still be going strong.

Nikolay: No, no, no, no, no.

They didn't close.

I mean, what I tried to say, I
just reflected your words about

not only are they strong, although
I heard about layoffs, but

they also raised the maximum number
of VC capital among all,

let's call it Postgres-related
companies, right?

So I just reflected the idea that
some of them are not purely

Postgres.

And these guys are not purely Postgres.

Of course, they have MySQL and
a lot of elastic and everything,

right?

Yeah, I would say we have a big
range of very big companies and

Aiven, at least according to Crunchbase,
raised $420 million.

It's insane, right?

Michael: With a lot of money.

Nikolay: Yeah, I think they were
first who reached the like kind

of unicorn label among Postgres,
let's call it Postgres-related

startups.

The other one I think is TimescaleDB
also reached this good mark,

right?

Like unicorn means a valuation exceeding
1 billion.

By the way, speaking of numbers,
420 is easy to remember sitting

in California.

But it's an impressive amount of
money and we have Supabase

and Timescale which raised more than
100 million, right?

Michael: Neon too, over 100 million.

Nikolay: Great, congrats everyone.

Michael: Hasura as well.

Nikolay: Yeah, Hasura.

By the way, I stopped hearing about
Hasura for a couple of years

already somehow.

And by the way, they are also starting
from Postgres.

I think they expanded to SQL Server
and everything.

Yeah, we didn't see the collapse of
really big startups, but smaller

and I think I would say Autotune
managed to be already like mid-size

because how much did they raise?

16 million?

15?

Michael: I saw 12, but I don't
know what they raised before that.

Nikolay: I think 15 or 16 was the
total I saw.

Honestly, if we say database startups,
this money should be not

serious, because database startups
require more money, I think,

to go serious.

And we have a lot of small, very
small things.

So let's talk about those who closed.

Like Autotune is 1 of the latest
news.

Who else?

Michael: There's only 1 other that
I know of, and that was Snaplet.

Nikolay: Snaplet, yeah.

Michael: It's not really in the
same category, but it's kind

of in our space of making tools.

Nikolay: What about Bit.io?

Bit.io, it was a nice idea.

You have a spreadsheet, you just
throw it to browser uploading,

right?

And it immediately creates Postgres
node with table and with

data.

Michael: Oh, really?

Nikolay: Yeah.

It's like super cloud approach,
like very, very cloud.

Like you just drop a spreadsheet
and start running SQL queries

to it.

Was a nice idea, but they closed
last year, I guess.

And similarly to AutoTune, they
did very, very, very, very, very,

very short notice for their customers,
which is, I think, very

bad behavior.

Not good, not good.

Like 30 days or so.

Get your data.

Yes,

Michael: it's difficult, isn't
it?

Nikolay: So these 3 startups, like
Snaplet, Bit.io and Autotune

are closed.

And my question is how many startups
do we have post-Gresley

that are in this kind of broader
term in general?

Maybe 30, right?

But 30 is quite a lot in my head.

And it means that maybe we already
have this mission complete,

you know?

Michael: So...

Easiest prediction to make is something
that's already happened.

Nikolay: Right.

Well, no, I mean, next 12 months
maybe it will happen again.

Michael: What do you think?

Nikolay: I don't know.

By the way, I somewhere had a list
of startups.

I think it didn't exceed 30.

Michael: Yeah, I've made a list.

I've made a bit of a list, but
I didn't know what should count.

Like, how many years does it still
count as a startup?

Nikolay: Right.

What is startup?

Michael: Yeah.

What about companies that haven't
gone down the VC route?

That kind of like, do they count?

So it's, I think it's really difficult.

And then especially if you start
to include companies that do.

Tools for more than 1 type of database.

Like We had an acquisition recently
in the Postgres space where

Timescale acquired a company called
Popsicle.

A cool name, by the way.

But they did a tool that worked
with Postgres, but not only Postgres.

And there's been loads of companies
like that, that I wouldn't

have thought to include if I was
making this list.

So it's a very, very tricky definition.

But to be fair, DAX did actually
qualify a little bit in some

replies, saying it was about the
crop of companies that have

popped up to offer managed Postgres
services, which does limit

it.

Nikolay: It's very different.

Michael: There can't be that many
of those, maybe 5 or 10.

Nikolay: Right.

And yeah, we cannot take existing
companies which started doing

this because they already cannot
be considered startups.

So it means we talk about only
like very few companies.

I think not more than 10 because
most managed Postgres services

I can think of, they are done by
companies which exist for many years.

So, Supabase, Neon, Tembo, who
else?

Michael: Yeah, for sure.

I don't know how some of the others
are monetizing.

Like, for example, there are people
like FerretDB offering Mongo-compatible

Postgres.

I don't think they're offering
a managed service though.

Is PGEdge as well?

Are they doing managed?

Nikolay: I don't follow.

Michael: I think so.

PeerDB as well, I don't know if
they're doing managed.

I don't know if you would count
it.

Nikolay: They don't have managed
Postgres, they have managed

replication for Postgres.

Michael: There you go.

So I don't think they count in this
prediction.

So it's a tricky one to...

I suspect it did its job and it
was pure engagement farming and

I've fallen for it.

But in the grand scheme of things,
I was most keen just to discuss

how do you see Postgres startups
at the moment?

And are there any gaps that you'd
really like to see maybe new

startups pop up or what kind of
problems some of these are solving?

Which ones are most important to
you?

Like that kind of thing?

Nikolay: Well I think I see things
very differently than a few

years ago.

I think a lot of new people came,
which is great, from different

market segments, like even from
database, from different database

systems, for example, right?

Like Tembo is 1 of great examples
here.

Michael: And, by the way, congrats
to them.

They just announced a raise.

Nikolay: 14 million

Michael: or something.

Nikolay: And special congrats for
Cybertruck to Ray.

Michael: We'll link that up.

Nikolay: With license plate startup,
very relevant to today's

discussion, right?

I think we have very different
types of companies and many attempts

and it's interesting time right
now because if we talk about

VC maybe it's harder to raise but
at the same time we know it's

harder to find a job, which also
means that it's easier to find

people.

And for those who make startups,
it's some additional window

of opportunity.

So it's a mixed situation right
now.

Like you might fail to raise, but
you might find good co-founder,

for example, technical, right?

And, and, and build something.

Yeah.

I'm honestly not standard startup
guy at all.

I'm slow, bootstrapping.

I'm just observing this like VC.

If you raise, for example, 10,
20 million dollars, build something

which brings you some significant
money, and then you need to

shut down your company because
you didn't have 10x growth per

year.

It's weird.

It's weird.

For VCs, it's probably like a failure,
right?

Because they expect hyper growth.

But why do we need the hyper growth
in post-growth ecosystem?

Maybe we should have good companies
which have normal growth,

like 30% per year and that's it.

I don't know, what do you think?

Michael: Well, I'm in the same
boat as you in terms of my own

companies, trying to grow it sustainably
with customer revenue,

customer funded, bootstrapped at
the beginning.

So trying to do things slow and
steady, but to do that, I felt

like I had to pick a very, very
small niche of a product, a very,

very kind of low surface area compete
in like a very, very small

area.

But I do think there are problems
in databases that do require

a lot more investment up front.

And those things are harder to
do self-funded slowly.

I think they do require a lot of
capital.

And then the only model at the
moment for that is either, well,

I guess there are examples, even
in the Postgres ecosystem of

companies funding their own development
there, like it, well,

back to the hyperscalers, but even,
So obviously companies like

AWS, RDS, that was all funded through
Amazon profits and Microsoft

as well, Google, but in the Postgres
space, Crunchy Data, for

example, have been investing in
their own platform that presumably

largely funded through their own
consulting business and then

customer revenues.

But it's like yours, right?

Your business is also mixed consulting
revenue.

So some of these other companies
I see are offering kind of service-based

business models as well as the
kind of more VC-friendly subscriptions

or hosting, like usage fees.

Nikolay: What is good about this
all, it's definitely ecosystem

is still growing, expanding, and
we see the growth of companies

which use Postgres in so many market
segments.

Everywhere, it's everywhere.

It's great.

We see many customers who need
help in many aspects.

So I agree we must divide companies
by what they do, goals.

If you want to change something
in the database itself, like build

a new type of Postgres itself or
rewrite part of Postgres, it requires

a lot of effort and you must have
a very long vision.

If you raise just $1,000,000, for
example, and next year VC will

say either raise or close basically
because you don't have customers.

This is not how it will work.

Fundamental things require a lot
of effort and maybe money also.

So Neon is a good example.

They change.

Michael: Yeah, great example.

Nikolay: Yeah, and also AlloyDB,
which is still under development

and Alexander Khodorkov joined
Supabase also good driver probably

to continue the development of AureolaDB
because what is there we

as Postgres users do need, right?

Features which are designed there.

Also, I would like to mention here
like historical things.

If maybe you've watched this, Michael
Stonebraker, who is like

father of Postgres, receiving Turing
Award 10 years ago or so,

he had a great lecture about startups
in the database, database startups,

because he is like, not only father
of Postgres, but he's the father

of database startups as well, participating
in doing this a lot.

So it was a great lecture.

I highly recommend it.

I remember he was comparing fundamental
database startups as

riding a bicycle across America,
like downhill, uphill.

Sometimes it feels great.

Sometimes it's like almost killing
you.

Very good lecture actually.

I enjoyed.

So this is a fundamental thing.

But there are other types of Postgres
related startups as well

and I think good things should
happen when we saw in Postgres

area, we saw the first acquisition
by Microsoft, it was Citus, right?

Michael: Yeah.

Which is

Nikolay: quite also fundamental,
I would say, right?

It's not Postgres itself, but it's
a significant layer of addition

to Postgres.

Michael: It's actually the one area
that I would like to see more

deep work done.

I think we've got a lot of bases
covered in the Postgres ecosystem,

but there is this kind of elephant
in the room with PlanetScale

and Vitesse.

We had great guests on recently
and I've since seen somebody

describe, I think it was actually
Arka from Notion, he described

what Sammy and the Figma team are
doing as somewhat starting

to build the Vitesse for Postgres.

I hadn't clicked that that's what
they were doing, but that is

kind of what they're doing.

So that feels like a gap at the
moment that could be, that probably

does require a lot of development
and could be funded by a VC-backed

startup.

But that's the one area that I don't
see currently being done.

Nikolay: Right.

But then there are several acquisitions,
I think, for smaller

startups.

And we saw also a few companies
which are Postgres-related in

YC.

Yeah.

Like PeerDB, right?

Michael: Is that the first time,
right?

PeerDB and then ParadeDB, are they
the first Postgres related

companies to get into YC?

Nikolay: No, Supabase was there
as well.

Michael: Oh, great shout, yeah.

Nikolay: Good point.

Someone else was there.

Michael: Sorry, Supabase, I forgot.

Nikolay: Yeah, I forgot.

Maybe someone else.

So, But there are bootstrappers
as well.

Is PgAnalyze bootstrapper?

Michael: Yeah, I had a list of
bootstrappers that I wanted to

give a shout out to.

Yeah, PgAnalyze is a great example,
but also DBeaver.

These bootstrappers don't get as
much, because they don't raise

money often, well never, they don't
get as much press.

So yeah, the rest of the other
ones I had to give a shout out

to were Egger Apps, who make Postico,
My favorite little Mac

client for Postgres.

Postgres Compare, which is run
by an old friend and colleague

of mine, I call Neil Anderson.

And also there's another monitoring
company, so PG Analyze, of

course, but with Lucas and the
team.

Nikolay: PG Analyze, I see it very
often lately.

Michael: Nice.

Nikolay: Do you consider Core Root
as a Postgres startup?

It's very strange to classify,
right?

Because they have good support
for Postgres for self-managed

installations, I think, because
they do eBPF monitoring, right?

I like the idea.

If we have like many Postgres nodes,
and not only Postgres, we

don't need to install anything
like additional extensions, but

we do need to have access to like...

Mason.

Well, right, right.

So it's a self-managed situation.

And they just observe whole traffic
and perform a lot of interesting

stuff, including like flame graphs.

Historically, you choose the period
and understand what Postgres

did in that period in terms of
what CPU was doing.

And also query analysis.

Michael: I forgot them, but I think
it's because they're not

purely, they're not only Postgres,
right?

So it's a different-

Nikolay: Not only Postgres, but
the founder was creating, it's

the same founder who created Okimeter
and it had very good Postgres

monitoring, 1 of the best I consider
still.

And you know, I had last year,
I had the overview of Postgres

monitoring systems at PgCon.

People liked a lot my slide deck,
so I know what I'm talking

about.

And Peter Zaitsev joined him recently
as co-founder.

Michael: Yeah, very cool.

Nikolay: So it means serious thoughts
about databases, of course,

maybe not Postgres only, but MySQL,
but definitely serious about

databases.

So we can consider, like, this
is the problem.

Fundamental, not fundamental, bootstrapped,
VC backed, Postgres

only, not Postgres only.

So many dimensions for this classification.

Michael: Well, and that's part
of what I wanted to discuss here.

It was, it does feel quite rich
at the moment.

It does feel like we have a lot
of options and I feel like that's

really positive and there's quite
a lot of innovation going on,

not only at the startups.

It feels like there's quite a lot
of innovation going on even

at some of the larger, older companies
working on Postgres things.

Maybe I'm biased and rose-tinted
glasses, but it feels really

positive to me at the moment.

Nikolay: I think the idea of that
tweet was the company who raised

the lot are in danger.

Michael: Interesting.

You think?

Nikolay: Yeah, because they need
to raise harder and if they

are not dealing with AI, for example,
VCs won't give them money,

right?

Maybe.

It's a very silly thought, but
it's actually in many cases true.

Michael: Well it will be interesting
to see if any of them do

but it also feels like the ones
that I'm aware of, they have

such good business models like
if the business model is working,

getting companies to host their
database on your system, the

ones that do well will grow with
you and pay you more each month,

month on month.

And it's very difficult to move
off, right?

It's expensive, it's risky.

So the fundamentals of...

Nikolay: IMAGINE you grow only
50% per year or just 100% per

year.

For VCs, it's not enough at some
point.

Michael: Good point.

Nikolay: It's tough.

Michael: But if we're talking about
100 million in the bank,

even if you hire a lot of people,
that's a serious amount of

money.

Nikolay: Right.

But how many managed Postgres services
do we have already?

And RDS is still the king of the
hill, right?

So I don't know.

And is it still expanding the user
base in terms of managed Postgres?

Michael: Good question.

I did look, going back to the tweet,
I go for what, if that's

the prediction, why is it the prediction?

I personally think the number of
databases is growing really

quickly.

The number of startups seems to
be exploding at the moment because

of the AI boom.

A lot of the AI use cases do need
a vector database.

Postgres, because of pgVector,
is positioned really well for vector

databases.

Nikolay: Do you think so?

Michael: Personally, yes.

Do you not think so?

Nikolay: I have doubts, because
it's not in core.

If you check Postgres documentation,
you don't see vector at

all.

This is a huge chance to lose this
battle, in my opinion.

This is serious.

It might look so silly, simple,
and so on, but it's a super serious

problem Postgres currently has.

And pgVector and all efforts.

It's good that all major managed
services quickly added pgVector,

but they usually lag in terms of
version.

It means that they lag to deliver
the best performance, for example,

which is quickly improving in the latest
versions.

And so on and so on.

Of course, this is a battle that's
happening, but it's a barrier

in minds, and some people, some
folks will not pass this barrier.

I mean, if you're not lazy, you
will quickly realize it's kind

of a zoo, it's a bazaar.

It's open source, that's why, like,
it's a bazaar.

So we have many options, you need
to quickly understand the options.

But I recently had this customer,
they said, okay, we are on

RDS, I think it was Aurora, and
we have pgVector, blah, blah,

blah.

And I see they use a very old version
of pgVector, much older than

even already available on Aurora,
but they didn't upgrade because

to upgrade you need to switch to
a different… I don't remember.

Some problems were happening.

This whole thing is so fragmented.

I mean vector story is very fragmented
right now.

And the only path to make it strong
is to put it inside Postgres.

But we know, we discussed that
there are problems with that.

Michael: Well, I don't think that's...

I disagree personally.

I think if you're really a startup
and you can't keep pgVector

up to date, you have bigger problems
than, you know, that feels

to me such an easy thing for you
to do.

If what I'm saying is true, If
there are lots of companies that

want vector databases right now
and are willing to go with Postgres,

I personally think it being out
of core is a benefit right now

because it means it can get bumps
in version really quickly.

Like, we see, I know they're not
technically major versions,

but 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 have all come
with quite big functionality

improvements.

And if it was in core, we wouldn't
have seen those.

It would have taken years.

So personally, I think there are
advantages in that area.

I've just remembered, though, I
actually think the prediction

was made partly because of 2 other
reasons.

I think it's partly that PlanetScale
is very marketing level

kind of attractive to kind of medium-sized,
like non-AI kind

of SaaS businesses.

I don't know how many non AI businesses
are popping up right

now, but the ones that are, I think
that they offer a very attractive

proposition, like kind of like
Mongo did before, but with SQL.

And then I think the other driving
force for the prediction is

probably the number of SQLite companies
popping up saying, actually,

all you need is this.

For a long, long time, you can
get by with SQLite, keep things

simple.

So I think at least that part of
Twitter that I'm seeing is talking

about those topics a bit more.

And that might be why they think
the Postgres startups might

struggle rather than a more nuanced
take on vector databases.

But I might have totally misunderstood.

What do you think?

Nikolay: Hard to say.

I don't know.

Michael: I just remembered there's
1 I completely forgot.

Have you heard of Nile?

N-I-L-E.

Yeah.

Because they popped up quite, like
relatively recently in the

grand scheme of things, talking
about running a regular SaaS

on Postgres and some innovations
in that area.

So that could be interesting, but
they're another 1 that we're

offering a managed service again.

Nikolay: Well, yeah, talking about
this lack of being in core,

of course, I agree with you about
the pace of development.

That's great.

And maybe things will change in
the future.

But it's just so sad that everyone
has everything in documentation,

like Techmonger, Elastic, everyone,
like any major database system.

They talk about vectors.

Postgres documentation doesn't
talk about vectors at all, right?

I mean, it talks about arrays,
but it's not like different, right?

So maybe at some point it will
go to core.

I hope it won't be late.

Right?

Michael: But, just to push you
a little bit, the super-based

documentation talks about vectors,
the neon documentation.

Of course.

Nikolay: RDS, Cloud SQL, all of
them.

Michael: Yeah.

But people are still then going
with Postgres.

So what's the problem?

Nikolay: The problem is that you
need to spend time to choose

and understand all the options
here, because options are quite

different everywhere.

Michael: But that would be true
even if it was in the Postgres

docs too.

In fact, 1 more option.

Nikolay: Maybe, maybe.

Michael: Anything you would like
to see?

Anything, like if anybody's listening,
wanting to do a startup

or like get inspired, is there
any kind of area you'd like to

see more innovation in?

Nikolay: Of course, And by the
way, Tembo is doing good steps

in this direction.

So I think, you know, 37signals
idea about moving out of cloud.

I

Michael: thought you were going
to say, I thought you were going

to say moving.

So they've also done this once
product that runs on SQLite, like,

but no, yeah, the moving out of
the cloud 1.

Yes.

Nikol gaming

Moving out of cloud and having
greater level of control over

your database.

Direct access to files, for example,
and so on, which is not

possible for managed Postgres services
usually.

We discussed it a few times.

Good thing that, for example, CrunchyBridge
provides full-fledged

super user.

So I expect, actually, Cytos co-founders,
they launched new startup

as well, right?

And they do Postgres as well.

Yeah, good point.

In UbiCloud, right?

Michael: That was it, yeah.

Forgot them, yeah, good point.

Nikolay: The idea is great.

You can install it anywhere, you
have full access, but it's still,

it's like the simplicity of management
is similar to you have

in cloud.

You can do it with Superbase as
well, by the way, I think.

You can host yourself, it's great.

So in this area, I expect good
shifts in the future, because

I think demand will be growing.

People who are like, already say
like, we've been in cloud enough.

We want to reduce overhead, how
much we spent and so on.

Of course, some people will say
cloud is great, I understand

this, But I think this party will
grow as well, like an anti-cloud

party, let's say.

Michael: I think it might also
be a little bit like stage of

company.

I can imagine a lot of startups
going with the cloud initially

and then like that, perhaps a bit
earlier than 37signals did,

maybe then moves workloads back
off.

So I could definitely see both
being true.

Nikolay: Yes.

So for example, new and fully betting,
everything should be cloud.

I understand that, but I also understand
like then we pay like

5 times more than we could.

So why do we do this?

I know small companies which also
understand that they don't

want to pay a lot and they are
good technically, so they are

successful and happy to be not
in cloud.

Or in very low-cost cloud, for
example.

And Postgres management there is
interesting because you want

all the features but don't want
all the overhead.

This is interesting.

In general, I don't know what will
happen, but it's normal for

startups to die, especially if
they are VC backed.

Yeah, because VCs put a lot of
pressure, especially after like

3 to 5 years of existence of the
company.

I learned it hard way with my second
startup, like 10 years ago,

when I realized like 3 years passed
and we need to move on and

huge optimization was needed.

It was successfully done, but it
was very painful.

So it's good if you know this in
advance, that there is some

period of time when you will need
to raise again or you will

just be closed.

In my case it was not closure,
it was just a huge optimization

to be very profitable at some point.

That's why I like the bootstrapped
cases as well.

Michael: Yeah.

Right.

And I'm glad we got a chance to
shout some of them out because

they don't always get the attention
they deserve.

Nikolay: If bootstrapped company
doesn't die in first year and

the founders still believe in this
idea, it's a much more stable

company actually, because they
don't have pressure from VCs.

But probably they have much less
chances to grow significantly,

right?

Michael: Well, it depends, right?

I actually forgot a couple of similar
companies that are bootstrapped

or mostly bootstrapped or at least
they've stopped raising and

they're doing really well.

Like JetBrains, a really, really
old company going from strength

to strength.

Nikolay: King of bootstrapped companies,
I think.

Michael: There are some examples
of companies that have scaled

to the same levels as some VC-backed
companies without needing

to.

So kudos to them as well.

Nikolay: Right.

So my conclusion is like, I expect
more closures and it's interesting

to observe the situation.

And unfortunately, I think closures
will happen with companies

who raised a lot Or they will need
to change things a lot.

Michael: Interesting.

Well, I'm not, I would be surprised.

So call me naive, but my prediction
would be that none of them

do close at least in the next 12
months.

So let's see.

I'll be rooting for them anyway.

In fact, all the Postgres startups,
I guess we'll be rooting

for.

Nikolay: Like a system is quite
interesting and with challenges,

but it's still growing, I think.

And I think it's interesting to
observe the further growth.

Michael: Yeah, should be fun anyway.

Thanks so much, Nikolay.

Anything else you wanted to add?

Nikolay: No, thank you.

See you next time.

Michael: See you next time.