Accepting too high a valuation can be a fatal error. The first question in any subsequent fundraising or M&A discussion will be about the prior round's price. An unjustifiably high number immediately destroys the psychology of the new deal, making it nearly impossible to raise more capital or sell the company, regardless of progress.
Related Insights
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.
The first question in any fundraising or M&A discussion is always, 'What was your last round price?' An inflated number creates psychological friction and can halt negotiations before they begin. Founders should optimize for a valuation that allows for a clear up-round, not just the highest price today.
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.
Contrary to the celebratory image of fundraising, closing a $5 million seed round did not bring the founder relief. Instead, it amplified his stress and focus, as he immediately felt the weight of the new $40 million valuation and the immense expectations that came with it.
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.
When Kevin attempted to buy the company he built, his partner inflated the valuation. The partner knew Kevin was emotionally invested and understood the business's true potential, using that knowledge as leverage to demand an overpayment, a common tactic in internal buyouts.
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.
The founder advises against always pursuing the highest valuation, noting it can lead to immense pressure and difficulties in subsequent rounds if the market normalizes. Prioritizing investor chemistry and a fair, responsible valuation is a more sustainable long-term strategy.
