Kevin Rose, a partner at True Ventures, argues that most founders, especially those building profitable businesses up to $10M in revenue, should not raise venture capital. He advocates for retaining 100% ownership and only seeking VC funding when hyper-growth makes it an absolute necessity.
Related Insights
Not all great businesses are suitable for venture capital. A 1,500-year-old Japanese carpentry firm is a fantastic business, but it lacks the exponential growth and massive scalability that define a VC-investable company. Founders must know the difference.
Club Penguin's co-founder warns that accepting VC money creates immense pressure to become a billion-dollar company. This often crushes otherwise successful businesses that could have been profitable at a smaller scale, making founders worse off in the long run.
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.
Mark Cuban highlights the conflict for founders with VC funding: VCs need rapid growth for an exit, which can force founders into risky decisions that dilute equity below 50% and risk the company's long-term health.
The rise of founder-optimized fundraising—raising smaller, more frequent rounds to minimize dilution—is systematically eroding traditional VC ownership models. What is a savvy capital strategy for a founder directly translates into a VC failing to meet their ownership targets, creating a fundamental conflict in the ecosystem.
The Laundress founder argues that celebrating multiple VC rounds is misguided. While seen as a "badge of honor," it means giving away control and equity. By bootstrapping, she retained majority ownership, contrasting the "sexy" VC narrative with the financial reality of keeping your company.
Venture capital can create a "treadmill" of raising rounds based on specific metrics, not building a sustainable business. Avoiding VC funding allowed Donald Spann to maintain control, focus on long-term viability, and build a company he could sustain without external pressures or risks.
A universal ownership target is flawed. The strategy should adapt to a company's traction. For rare, breakout companies with undeniable product-market fit ('absolutely working'), a VC should take any stake they can get. For promising but unproven ideas ('could work'), they must secure high ownership to compensate for the greater risk.
Raising venture capital is often a network-driven game. If you don't already have a network of VCs or a clear path through an accelerator, your focus should not be on fundraising. Instead, dedicate your effort to building a product people want and gaining traction. VCs will find you once you have something compelling to show.
In the creator economy, success isn't always defined by venture-backed growth. Many top creators intentionally cap their audience size and reject outside investment to maintain full control over their business and content, defining success as a sustainable, manageable enterprise rather than a unicorn.
