And, while AGPL v2 may be passable under certain conditions, we'd better avoid it altogether.
Google internally forbids using AGPL-licensed products for its projects and has a nice explanation of the reasoning.
Here is a good overview of the problem.
AGPL v3 was created specifically to close the "networking loophole" where in AGPL v2 you were not forced to open-source your software if you shipped an AGPL component with your system as-is and only used it through a network API. AGPL v3 forbids this specifically.
SaaS systems can get away with AGPL v3 because they don't distribute the software.
On-prem / self-hosted software can't use AGPL v3 components even if they are unmodified: you then have to open-source the whole code of the system.
AGPL is very vague, so trying to invent a loophole is also very risky. AGPL v3 ideology is particularly zealous.
Additionally, it's rather hard to convince investors to give you money to build a system they won't own the code of. So opening everything is not an option for a product like ours. Arguably, there may be a chance of our platform getting open-sourced at some point in the distant future. But this is something to consider when we are successful with it.