The truth is, there's usually only two avenues for financing new technology:
equity
debt
VCs deal in the world of equity. They exist for the awkward "teenage" phase of development -- between seed rounds and IPO. They assume a lot of risk because they (typically) hope for the possibility of 10x ROI, and they almost always have an exit strategy. Most VC-backed companies fail.
Theoretically, you could avoid the world of equity through debt financing. Thing is, debt financiers are more risk averse than VCs. For good reason too -- the only thing they have to gain is their money back with some interest. If the company fails, they get nothing.
Thus, if you want to get rid of VCs, you need people who are willing to tolerate the same risk.
@davidcampey I don't neglect it. In my first sentence, I put the word "usually".
Not everyone has access to research funding, grants, and philanthropy. To most people, it's not an option.
And those entities that give grants are also risk-averse too. Obviously, it helps. But if you're doing something that requires a big infusion of capital, grant money typically won't get you there.
@atomicpoet there's a third... Grants, public or private. I've received both to develop new tech, as have numerous activitypub initiatives. NLNET grants have supported quite a range of activitypub projects. There's a huge case to be made that public funds should support innovation in exchange for open licences. Too often that doesn't happen, but it's fantastic when it does.
@GavinChait I understand that grant money exists, and I appreciate what NLNET does. But almost everyone I know that's received NLNET grant money isn't able to live off of it. And I don't think the people who receive grant money expect to live off of it either -- but it does help.
Grant money only takes you so far.
I agree with you, though, about public funds. It would be great if governments were the engine for tech development. Unfortunately, conservative governments don't like putting tax dollars in that direction.