There's a strong reluctance in venture capital to fund companies that are number two or three in a category dominated by a "kingmaker"—a startup already backed by a top-tier firm. This creates a powerful, self-fulfilling fundraising moat for the perceived leader, making it unpopular to back competitors.
Trying to win a competitive Series A against a firm like Sequoia is nearly impossible for a smaller fund. Top firms leverage an overwhelming arsenal of social proof, including board seats at the world's most valuable companies and references from iconic founders, creating an insurmountable competitive moat.
The current fundraising environment is the most binary in recent memory. Startups with the "right" narrative—AI-native, elite incubator pedigree, explosive growth—get funded easily. Companies with solid but non-hype metrics, like classic SaaS growers, are finding it nearly impossible to raise capital. The middle market has vanished.
Contrary to the belief that number two players can be viable, most tech markets are winner-take-all. The market leader captures the vast majority of economic value, making investments in second or third-place companies extremely risky.
The moat for a market leader isn't just the initial VC investment; it's the subsequent, rapid follow-on rounds that create a 'wall of money.' This forces competitors to prove they can win against not just a brand name, but also a massive and compounding capital advantage.
VCs often pass on great deals by overweighting the fear of future competition from giants like Google. The better mental model is to invest in founders with demonstrable "strength of strengths," accepting that some weaknesses are okay, rather than seeking a flawless profile.
Venture investors aren't concerned when a portfolio company launches products that compete with their other investments. This is viewed as a positive signal of a massive winner—a company so dominant it expands into adjacent categories, which is the ultimate goal.
Series A is a brutal competition where top-tier firms have an insurmountable advantage. Their brand and network are so powerful that if a smaller fund wins a competitive Series A deal against them, it’s a strong negative signal that the top firms passed for a reason.
Competing to be a founder's "first call" is a crowded, zero-sum game. A more effective strategy is to be the "second call"—the specialist a founder turns to for a specific, difficult problem after consulting their lead investor. This positioning is more scalable, collaborative, and allows for differentiated value-add.
While massive "kingmaking" funding rounds can accelerate growth, they don't guarantee victory. A superior product can still triumph over a capital-rich but less-efficient competitor, as seen in the DoorDash vs. Uber Eats battle. Capital can create inefficiency and unforced errors.
The "Capital River" is a concept where one or two companies in a category gain unstoppable momentum. Once "in the river," they attract a disproportionate share of capital, top-tier talent, and high-quality customers, creating a powerful, self-reinforcing flywheel that helps them dominate.