The "game on the field" is to go stratospheric or explode on the pad. Nothing in-between is ideal.
No patience for somebody pursuing their life's work; just a rat race for ARR that turns technology into a hamster wheel that spins ever faster while going nowhere.
This attitude resulted in a remarkable immolation of capital in 2018–2022, and is arguably worse today.
There is simply not enough intellectual bandwidth relative to the amount of capital in VC right now.
Btw, we say this sorta thing repeatedly on our blog at https://t.co/2QT1YmjUFR.
For example - https://t.co/SKG3WLSeWK -
"A fast-growing company that never receives another round of VC funding after our investment (because it doesn’t need it) and is never in the press (because it chooses not to be) is a great outcome from where we sit. It is a win for LPs, shareholders, and other stakeholders."
Founders, stop telling VCs you’re only going to raise one round, maybe one more, and then never need capital again.
It sounds capital efficient. To a VC, it can sound like you don’t understand how venture works.
VCs are investing in companies they believe can compound quickly, attract more capital, raise at higher valuations and create markups along the way. Those subsequent rounds help validate the investment, establish new pricing and give funds something tangible to show LPs long before an exit.
If your pitch is “we’ll raise $3M, become profitable and never need another dollar,” you may be describing a great business. But you’re not necessarily describing the type of company the venture model is built to fund.
And the other problem is simpler: investors probably don’t believe you anyway.
If the company grows as quickly as you’re promising, there’s a good chance you’ll eventually decide that taking another $20M to accelerate growth is rational.
Capital efficiency is great. Optionality is great. Pretending you know today that you’ll never raise again usually isn’t.
Risk management 101—every exposure should have a limit, even when you’re sure nothing could go wrong. After all, the Titanic sank and AAA mortgage bonds went to zero. I worry about the market’s (and the economy’s) unlimited appetite for exposure to the positive AI revenue story.
There may not be many people left in 10 years who can write, or want to read, things longer than a page or two. But there will be at least a few of us, and we'll be a powerful club.
We are currently at the biggest bifurcation in early stage startup funding I’ve ever seen.
I’ve had dozens of conversations over the last few weeks with founders, VCs and family offices about what is actually “fundable” right now, and the list keeps getting shorter as expectations rise.
There is plenty of capital, but it’s concentrating into fewer companies.
At one end, the best companies are raising bigger rounds at higher valuations earlier than ever. At the other, good companies with real revenue, customers and solid growth are struggling to raise at all.
The middle is disappearing.
Being a good business isn’t enough anymore. Investors increasingly want to believe you can become an enormous business, very quickly.
More capital. Higher expectations. Fewer companies that qualify.
I’m smart enough to not opine when markets will correct. Timing is impossible to predict.
But in the long term this bubble will deflate, those who were not wearing their swim trunks will be revealed as being sans clothing, and rational business building, capital formation, etc will return.
The nifty fifty is a good mental model of what’s happening now
RATIONAL CAPITAL
The reasonably priced 3T2D series A and B might be the best investment opportunity in the market today
These companies are trading at significant discounts to public markets and what financial sponsors will pay
Just need to be able to keep the companies solvent and be patient as they mature and market self-corrects
In a market where VCs are paying 100x revenue and giving unicorn valuations to companies that haven’t launched a product, this is what we call good ole fashioned rational capital