It depends on size and ambition, and if you're able to continue to improve or add new feature sets ahead of competition - and if you can maintain price points to serve/convince enough of the market to keep using you vs. competition that can come in from all over the world - and be heavily subsidized by VCs.

Getting bought out or IPO'ing on stock market are generally best options, especially with the uncertainty of the next 10 years, which then allows you to be able to essentially stop working for a period of time.

Otherwise the game is you can fall behind developing features, where heavily funded startups simply copy everything you've spent years designing, catching up by cutting their time and effort down since feature sets have already been curated down to a model that works, and you either find a way to survive or competitors take your clients.

Those heavily funded startups who can always outcompete what a stable and long-term business will be willing or able to pay - subsidized by the VC industrial complex, as an additional way to kill competition - on the micro level but also on the macro level - making VC funded companies more likely to succeed overall; even if it's sucking talent away from good or more worthwhile efforts - and also at the expense of the general population, as the VC industrial complex also requires higher fees to be charged; it's inflammatory-inflationary.

There's also the acquihire model in regards to consolidation, which overall doesn't seem good for the consumer but can give a good payout.

I’m confused, this is the openly stated goal of most tech startups. They aim to be acquired and therefore make a huge profit for the founders. That’s their entire business model: build the product and sell it to a bigger company