> It was a very intentional decision to funnel money towards further growth, which frankly I had/have no issues with.
This is the nature of swelling debt. This is most immediately exemplified in ponzi schemes.
Financially this only makes sense if the greater growth unlocks revenue sufficient to pay back earlier investors without a leveraged need for further investment at the same rate/scale. Otherwise the earlier investors might be paid back for their investment, but the later investors certainly won't. There is no way to predict that without first taking on the extra debt burden. Uggghh.
In that vein this is very much like the dot com crash. The dot com crash occurred for two reasons: over speculation and the investment in question was purely financial without any regard for the end product/service.
This is the nature of swelling debt. This is most immediately exemplified in ponzi schemes.
Financially this only makes sense if the greater growth unlocks revenue sufficient to pay back earlier investors without a leveraged need for further investment at the same rate/scale. Otherwise the earlier investors might be paid back for their investment, but the later investors certainly won't. There is no way to predict that without first taking on the extra debt burden. Uggghh.
In that vein this is very much like the dot com crash. The dot com crash occurred for two reasons: over speculation and the investment in question was purely financial without any regard for the end product/service.