I'd rather have an established company give broad autonomy to PL developers at a loss (Go at Google, Swift at Apple) than risk eventual squeeze when VCs ask for their money back.
This was caused by the company running out of money, not by investor pressure, and it resulted in the language becoming more open rather than less. So it doesn't seem like an example at all.
Those seem quite different to me? Any kind of endeavor reliant on paid labor needs a source of funding and has to shut down if it can't find any; that's different from a situation where a business could have been sustainable by itself but has already taken investment from VCs for whom that's not good enough.
