I can't help but make a wry observation that they are objectively VC-funded, but that by saying they aren't a "classic VC-funded growth trajectory" you're doing a No-True-Scotsman-style "not a true venture funded company" argument, and that they are literally a True Ventures funded company..

I'll show myself out.

(Seriously though, I see your point and am not trying to bicker about this; I just think it's a funny situation)