I agree with Elizabeth DeHoff here, mostly. The only caveat I make is a reservation about jumping to the money conclusion that’s asserted in the OP and implied in DeHoff’s response.
The object of your business is products and services, because, on the bottom line, this is what people spend money for.
Girard is looking at, what is, essentially, a job in financials, not tech. At no point is he talking about the viability of a product or service, but of a marketing tactic. He says, “look at the people I am dealing with, my financial mentors do not believe in it”.
This may be true. The trajectory of his work, as he sees it, requires deference to these powers that be that he is choosing to do business with. This is a strategic outlook based upon his analysis of the financial reality he envisions, and how much debt he will be allowed to assume in pursuit of it.
DeHoff takes the view that while it is true that financials are still important, it is the profit of stock that determines whether or not a business will succeed, not the sexual preferences of potential investors, were the business able to successfully negotiate a way through, around, over, or under those objections. It’s a more pragmatic view, to be sure, and one that is commendable.
My own more, as it were, is that people getting ready to start new businesses had more confidence in the basic principle that good products and services will lead to good wages, rents, and profits, and will eventually overcome flaws and imperfections in marketing and financial strategies.
I recognize that this is not easy.