The venture capital benchmark for elite growth has shifted for AI companies. The old "T2D3" (Triple, Triple, Double, Double, Double) heuristic for SaaS is no longer the gold standard. Investors now consider achieving $100M ARR in under three years as the strongest signal of exceptional product-market fit in AI.

Oren Zeev argues the market's obsession with triple-digit growth is dangerous, driving unhealthy behaviors like circular revenue deals. He prefers a company doubling annually with healthy economics over one tripling with unsustainable practices, as the fundamental math of compounding has not changed.

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.

Investors like Stacy Brown-Philpot and Aileen Lee now expect founders to demonstrate a clear, rapid path to massive scale early on. The old assumption that the next funding round would solve for scalability is gone; proof is required upfront.

The bar for pre-seed funding has risen dramatically. With an abundance of startups already generating revenue (e.g., $1M ARR), VCs are choosing these de-risked opportunities over pure idea-stage companies. This "flight to quality" has bifurcated the market, making it extremely difficult for pre-revenue founders to raise.

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.

Venture capitalists may value a solid $15M revenue company at zero. Their model is not built on backing good businesses, but on funding 'upside options'—companies with the potential for explosive, outlier growth, even if they are currently unprofitable.

The venture capital return model has shifted so dramatically that even some multi-billion-dollar exits are insufficient. This forces VCs to screen for 'immortal' founders capable of building $10B+ companies from inception, making traditionally solid businesses run by 'mortal founders' increasingly uninvestable by top funds.

The market has shifted beyond a simple AI vs. non-AI debate. The only metric that matters for private companies is extreme growth velocity. Startups demonstrating anything less are considered unfundable, creating a stark divide in the venture landscape.