A massive valuation for a "seed" round can be misleading. Often, insiders have participated in several unannounced, cheaper tranches. The headline number is just the final, most expensive tier, used to create FOMO and set a high watermark for new investors.

Raising too much money at a high valuation puts a "bogey on your back." It forces a "shoot the moon" strategy, which can decrease capital efficiency, make future fundraising harder, and limit potential exit opportunities by making the company too expensive for acquirers.

Instead of stating a single number, introduce price as a range based on what similar customers invest to solve comparable problems. This normalizes the cost, provides a clear budget anchor, and frames the conversation around investment and partnership rather than a transactional price tag.

Valuations don't jump dramatically; they 'sneak up on you.' An investor might balk at a $45M cap when they expected $40M. But the fear of missing a potential unicorn is stronger than the desire for a slightly better price, causing a gradual, batch-over-batch inflation of valuation norms.

Venture rounds are compressing and conflating, with massive "seed" rounds of $30M+ essentially combining a seed and Series A. This sets a dangerous trap: the expectations for your next funding round will be equivalent to those of a traditional Series B company, dramatically raising the bar for growth.

Investors like Reid Hoffman see the fundraising negotiation not as a zero-sum game, but as a crucial test of a founder's character, realism, and suitability as a long-term partner. Unreasonable or unrealistic demands, even in a hot deal, are a negative signal that can kill an investment.

Ben Horowitz advised that pricing is the most critical decision for a company's valuation because it is the primary lever impacting both growth and margins. Founders often treat it glibly, but it deserves deep strategic thought as it underpins the entire business.

A frequent conflict arises between cautious VCs who advise raising excess capital and optimistic founders who underestimate their needs. This misalignment often leads to companies running out of money, a preventable failure mode that veteran VCs have seen repeat for decades, especially when capital is tight.

Reflecting on raising $35M, Ergatta's founder suggests taking less capital might have been wiser. While tempting to raise as much as possible, large funding rounds lock the company into a specific financial trajectory and set of expectations. Raising less money can preserve crucial optionality and flexibility for the business's future.