Venture Capitalists Are Pickier About What They Invest In — Here’s How That Actually Benefits Startups

“More money, more success” has long been the driving force behind founder fundraising strategies. But a paradoxical truth is emerging: sometimes, less money can lead to better, more sustainable businesses.

When VCs infuse startups with significant capital early on, it’s typically accompanied by an outsized valuation. It creates immense pressure. As a founder, I’ve experienced the challenge of raising a big round and then grappling with the expectations that come with it.

Now, as an investor, I’m focused on fostering a startup environment with a bit less hype. I want the companies I invest in to concentrate on solving meaningful problems, rather than being constantly distracted by the allure of the next big thing.

Investing less money in promising startups might seem like a counterintuitive approach, but it forces us to rethink the role of venture capital in nurturing successful companies.

Related: I Was a Founder Before I Became an Investor — Here’s How It Shaped My Investment Strategy

The downsides of excessive funding

In 2021, $345 billion in venture capital investments were made in the U.S. But that number dropped to $170.6 billion in 2023, leading to widespread layoffs throughout the tech industry.

The reasons for the downtown were driven by broad economic concerns post-pandemic and an industry-wide realization that capital was being deployed too freely at valuations companies couldn’t justify. Startups were raising large rounds at high valuations, often before proving there was any real demand for their product. While access to capital is crucial for growth, excessive funding can be detrimental to early-stage startups. Overfunded companies often scale too quickly, hire aggressively and expand into new markets before establishing product-market fit.

Abundant resources can lead to wasteful spending: excessive perks, lavish marketing and a lack of focus on core business objectives. Success in the early stages of a business often requires a survival mindset, which is easier to cultivate when there are fewer funds. At my last venture, my company was behind on delivering our product to a Fortune 500 customer. We were eight months away from shipping our product. Delays were impacting our ability to learn and demonstrate progress. We didn’t have the runway to support another few months with no product in the market. So our team and I got together and finished building the hardware ourselves. We got our hands dirty because we couldn’t afford to wait. We found a way to ship a small batch of product in four months.

The time savings gave us the ability to improve our product and develop valuable relationships with other customers. The resulting learnings helped us raise our next round. If we had waited, we risked missing out on those new customers and proving our product worked well enough before we needed to fundraise again.

When every dollar counts, you’re more likely to do whatever it takes to survive.

Related: ‘That’s Not What I Want to Invest In’: Venture Capitalists Withheld Billions From Startups Last Year — and Neglected One Urgent Category In Particular

How capital constraints drive innovation

In addition to forcing a survival mentality, limited resources can be a catalyst for innovation at a young company. Startups with less money in the bank must focus on their most critical goals, leading to strategic decision-making and encouraging people to solve problems on the cheap.

There will always be downward pressure for a business market on smaller, faster, cheaper products.

With fewer resources, startups are often more customer-focused, prioritizing feedback from existing customers over expansive marketing efforts. This approach can lead to a better product-market fit earlier in the company’s lifecycle. Startups that operate under these constraints often maintain leaner, more efficient operations, avoiding the pitfalls of over-hiring and subsequent layoffs.

Many companies with lower VC investments have operated this way and been incredibly successful. Mailchimp was bootstrap-funded until its $12 billion acquisition by Intuit in 2021. They grew organically by focusing on customer needs and reinvesting profits. Atlassian raised just $210 million before going public at a $4.4 billion valuation, proving that capital efficiency can lead to significant returns. And before its $7.5 billion acquisition by Microsoft, GitHub raised only $350 million, maintaining a lean operation while becoming the world’s leading software development platform.

Related: 3 Reasons Why A Lack of Funding Could Become Your Startups’ Secret Weapon

The long-term impact of capital efficiency

Capital efficiency doesn’t just benefit individual startups; it has far-reaching implications for the entire startup ecosystem. When startups learn to do more with less, they contribute to a culture of sustainability and resilience within the tech industry. This shift away from growth-at-all-costs towards more measured, thoughtful expansion can lead to healthier competition, where companies are valued for their actual progress rather than inflated valuations.

Capital-constrained startups are also better positioned to withstand economic downturns, reducing the risk of widespread layoffs and closures that can destabilize the industry. This approach also encourages a more equitable distribution of venture capital, as funds are allocated based on proven milestones rather than speculative hype, which could lead to more diverse and inclusive investments.

A new model for venture capital

As the industry evolves, I see this approach becoming more common — VCs are beginning to tailor funding amounts to a startup’s specific needs and growth stage, rather than pushing for larger rounds. More VCs are offering hands-on operational guidance, helping startups make the most of their limited resources and supporting them through longer growth cycles rather than pushing for quick exits.

The venture capital paradox challenges us to reconsider the relationship between funding and success. By doing more with less money, we can create a more sustainable startup ecosystem. As we move forward, both founders and investors need to strike the right balance between growth and efficiency, ensuring that future startups are built on solid foundations rather than just hype and excessive capital.