What is it that Digg has done that has cost them 11 million in funding? Didn't Reddit do the same type of thing with around $100,000 total money invested? I know that they've scaled up to 50 employees, and that's where their burn rate goes, but has it really meant a better product?<p>I keep coming up against this idea that VC money is increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage. It seems that the companies that have taken VC money end up having to go for much higher valuations to exit, otherwise the VC's don't get theirs. Meanwhile, companies that have managed to get by on no funding or on angel funding alone are able to exit much sooner for much lower valuations, and the founders probably make out just as well if not better.<p>Rumor mill has it that Digg has been on the market for several years now. I have to imagine that part of that inability to sell the company has been because of it's 2 rounds of VC funding.