While it's easy to stop funding obviously failing companies, the most difficult decisions involve startups that are doing okay but are not on a trajectory for venture-scale returns. The emotional challenge for VCs is balancing their supportive, founder-friendly role with the tough-minded discipline required for their LPs.
Related Insights
More capital isn't always better. An excess of funding can lead to a lack of focus, wasteful spending, and a reluctance to make tough choices—a form of moral hazard. It's crucial to match the amount of capital to a founder's ability to deploy it effectively without losing discipline.
The worst feeling for an investor is not missing a successful deal they didn't understand, but investing against their own judgment in a company that ultimately fails. This emotional cost of violating one's own conviction outweighs the FOMO of passing on a hot deal.
Startups in social impact or wellness often receive positive but misleading feedback from VCs. Investors are hesitant to reject these missions outright, so they offer praise while privately declining due to perceived weak business models and a lack of "cutthroat" founders. This creates a "Save the Whales trap" for idealistic entrepreneurs.
Small funds and solo GPs can gain an edge by not reserving capital for follow-on rounds. This strategy enforces discipline, avoids cognitive biases like sunk cost, and recognizes that the skill set for pre-seed diligence is fundamentally different from that required for later-stage investments.
Beyond product-market fit, there is "Founder-Capital Fit." Some founders thrive with infinite capital, while for others it creates a moral hazard, leading to a loss of focus and an inability to make hard choices. An investor's job is to discern which type of founder they're backing before deploying capital that could inadvertently ruin the company.
The pervasive trend of VCs being "founder-friendly" often manifests as "hypocritical politeness" that withholds crucial, direct feedback. This ultimately hurts the company. Strong founders don't select for niceness; they seek partners who provide brutally honest input to help them improve.
New VCs often rush to make deals to prove themselves, but this leads to a portfolio of mediocre companies. These investments consume a disproportionate amount of time and energy, leaving no bandwidth to pursue the truly exceptional, career-making opportunities that may appear later.
Deciding whether to invest more capital into a struggling portfolio company is a major point of conflict. The management team advocates strongly for the infusion, believing it can turn things around. However, investor experience shows that such 'bridge' rounds are rarely successful, making it a difficult decision.
VCs can handle pivots and financial struggles. Their primary nightmare is a founder who quits. A startup's ultimate survival hinges on the founder's psychological resilience and refusal to give up, not just market or product risk.
The hardest transition from entrepreneur to investor is curbing the instinct to solve problems and imagine "what could be." The best venture deals aren't about fixing a company but finding teams already on a trajectory to succeed, then helping change the slope of that success line on the margin.
