Comment by staticassertion

I really couldn't have been clearer. The implication was that Zed made a decision because of pressure from a VC. I said that they were vastly overestimating the pressure a VC can exert on an early stage company.

You've then pointed out that the company is directly tied to the VC, which is true but just as relevant as saying that the company is tied to the founder's parents. You've failed to explain what different there is between the VC and a parent other than that there's a causal link in the existence of the company.

So I suggested that you substantiate that difference if you want to make a point about the VC.

I don't know what is confusing about this.