"Why won't they invest in my startup?" Well, for starters, where's your proof? Anyone can smooth-talk their way to flashy promises. Investors have learned the hard way not to fall for it. And the best investors never did. Because... They look at numbers, track records, and traction. Don't be that tech founder pitching without a proof of concept. Be the one with a prototype, interested customers, and validation tests. You need to control the controllables. Build an MVP to get data on market feedback. Be transparent about the challenges but show a plan. Be clear on the use of funds with measurable milestones. You can't control if the investor has: → a competing company in their portfolio → shifts in their fund strategy → or limited capital left But for the rest... be in control. Prove you're worth investing in. Don't rely on FOMO or promises. Majd Alaily said it well: "You need validation, traction, and scalable revenue." His original post: https://lnkd.in/gkxdEHPh i5growth - international growth / i5invest: Investment Fund, global tech M&A arm, team of 100+, offices in San Francisco, Vienna, Madrid, Berlin, Frankfurt; 200+ exits & strategic partnerships with tech leaders such as Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, Naspers, NBC, … #strategy #startups #growth #technology #i5growth #i5invest
Look I dont disagree with the crux of "control the uncontrollable", but I do think it's a bit reductive to say that VC's don't invest in ideas or that "investors have learned the hard way not to fall for it". On the first, VCs definitely invest in ideas, there's a clear difference between early-stage and late stage VCs. The idea that no VC will invest until you have unit economics and profitability doesn't seem to comport with reality, recent memory. Facebook is a great example. They had no idea about how to convert user traction into revenue (obviously they landed on that pretty well...) On the second, "investors have learned the hard way not to fall for it". This doesnt seem true with high profile failures (and 100000 more never heard of), recent memory- WeWork, Theranos, FTX, Frank... While having traction + revenue certainly helps manage the downside risks for VCs, saying that they have learned seems to disregard recent history. I appreciate your thoughts- just wanted to add a bit, if ok :)
Fully agree Markus Wagner . After countless discussions with investors, one theme keeps coming up: the lack of strong sales skills and training in startups and scaleups. Here are the key challenges: 1️⃣ Great ideas, but no sales: Many startups have incredible potential, but they fail to deliver where it matters most—selling their product. Despite investing heavily in marketing, they struggle to convert leads into paying customers. This isn’t just a maturity issue; it highlights a critical gap in sales expertise and training. 2️⃣ Selling without profitability: Some startups and scaleups do manage to sell, but they operate with razor-thin margins. Why? They lack negotiation skills and strategic sales processes. Without trained sales teams or structured approaches, they can’t demonstrate profitability—making investments risky. 3️⃣ Scaling without sales strategy: Scaling requires more than a good product or timing; it demands well-trained, skilled sales teams and a scalable strategy. Too often, startups rely on “luck-based” selling, achieving some success but failing to build repeatable, systematic sales processes. Without these, they’re vulnerable when competition intensifies.
You forgot “social proof” via strong personal connections to GPs you want to raise money from. But also, there are so many startups that break most of your rules that end up getting oversubscribed rounds that it’s kind of bad faith to completely leave that out and act like VCs don’t invest based on cognitive biases
I think that good VCs have assessment capabilities to determine the value of an idea and the risk of developing a profitable business based of the proposal. Your graph is about de-risking and reflects the loses of the VC rather than the lack of progress of the founder. Once an idea is de-risked, why does the founder needs a VC? The ability to capture a solution for a sizable need where one understands the scalable pain points and the monetization/regulatory issues should be the investment goal of venture capital. The ability to raise large sums of money to integrate ideas to solve monumental problems. My opinion.
Inventor IP Licensing | Compliance Consultant MiCA | IP Crystal Validator™ Blockchain FinTech RWAs Digital ID & Wallets | Remote Projects | FLASH USDT Gaming eGaming | Smart Airport Systems | 46x Author | 23 Case Studies
10moMost inventors don’t start with millions to burn. They start with an idea that could revolutionize an industry or solve a critical problem. But the system is stacked against them: Development Costs Are Insane Building an MVP often costs millions, especially for hardware or systems-level innovations. Inventors are told to sell their house, drain savings, sacrifice everything—and it’s still not enough. VCs Play It Safe Most VCs aren’t “venture capitalists” anymore—they’re risk managers. They swoop in after the hard work is done, when there’s an MVP, traction, and low risk. By then, funding isn’t the bottleneck. There are better ways to raise capital than giving control to someone chasing a 10x flip. The Misplaced Ego of Money Money is important, but it’s just a tool. Investors often act like capital is the crown jewel of a startup. Newsflash: ideas, vision, and relentless effort are harder than wiring funds. Respect that. The ‘Where’s Your Proof?’ Hypocrisy Inventors get grilled on validation, traction, and market proof. But where’s the proof this system works for them? Most great ideas are buried under the weight of development costs and pre-MVP funding gaps. Your post is no different than stapping an inventor in the FACE!