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.

A common belief is that investment from a top-tier VC can guarantee a company's success. However, the hard-learned lesson is that capital alone cannot create a successful company. True success is predetermined by the founder's quality and strong product-market fit; VCs can only help navigate.

The venture market has shifted from seeking contrarian bets to piling capital into consensus winners, even at extreme valuations. The new logic resembles the old adage "you can't get fired for buying IBM," where investing in a perceived leader with a 1x preference is deemed a safer, more defensible capital allocation decision.

Idealists often believe the best idea will naturally triumph. In reality, an idea's success is determined by the "innovation capital" of its champion—their credibility, network, and influence. The idea and the innovator's capital are a combined package, not separate entities.

The "kingmaking" power of elite VCs is overstated in enterprise sales. While a top-tier brand can help with recruiting, it provides little advantage in acquiring customers, as most buyers are unfamiliar with the venture capital landscape. The product, not the investor, closes the deal.

Contrary to the popular debate, venture is primarily an access game, not a picking game. The core challenge is building a system to see a high volume of exceptional founders and then win the allocation. Once that is achieved, selecting which ones to back becomes straightforward.

The SoftBank Vision Fund's "capital as a weapon" strategy is fundamentally flawed because it creates an adverse selection machine. Companies that rely solely on massive capital infusions to win, rather than product or market advantages, are often weaker. True market leaders attract resources organically, making huge, preemptive checks a poor basis for an investment thesis.

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.