I don't find this argument compelling. It doesn't matter why you take the money. It matters that you took the money and keep saying it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why did they take it? For the benefits and they did benefit from it, so they can't keep saying they haven't taken investors money and be credible.
I disagree. Manager-types call the years where you spend more money than you should "investment years", as in, you're investing in the business. If they took the money and are sitting on it, they clearly are't running the standard VC company playbook.
You're making too many assumptions. Who says they are sitting on the money? Who says they didn't spend it on rent and salaries when they didn't have any other money coming in? Maybe they spent it on publishing their book or adwords or off shoring. Who knows?
