The deck from March says that they have been sending the deck around since March, and are still looking for investments. It might be meaningful, but would have to measure how quickly the typical funding rounds are made for successful companies, to have an "academic" argument about it. However it doesn't really matter, a VC can invest for whatever reasons he wants.
> The deck from March says that they have been sending the deck around since March, and are still looking for investments
You're assuming that most businesses seeking VC money are fundraising full-time.
I read this and assumed that the founder was was working on building their business full-time and passively looking for VC. For example, they might not be ready to do active fundraising, but want to "dip their toe" into VC so they're much better prepared in 6-24 months when they are ready to actively raise money?
The attention that a business needs gives to fundraising really depends on what the business is, and how well organic growth helps them now.
Also the fact they haven't updated their deck in April/May means they didn't have any huge growth in march/april/may to brag about, or even they had bad march/april/may results that they want to hide
Whatever the reason. The VC objection is nonsense of the fortune cookie wisdom variety. We (venture backed founders) tolerate it because we need the inane spiritual blessings of these dubious kingmakers to make our world go around. So we smile, nod, grit our teeth, and move on to the next one. But none of them are secret geniuses with a unique skill to predict the future based on random made up nonsensical “signals”.
They’re herd animals where survivorship bias has a reinforcing function until a point where being luckiest longest makes it possible to put a finger on the scale of outcomes to make raising subsequent funds easier, makes it possible to set the trend the herd follows, and makes it possible to somewhat curate outcomes (“soft landings” instead of insolvency) for your portfolio.
Every single unicorn and/or significantly exited startup has a pile of VC rejections that’s miles high. The trick as the founder is to just figure out how to find better aligned investors. Typically ones who aren’t high on the ego trip of being an accidental kingmaker. Take the “feedback” like that of the VC in the post for what it is… complete nonsense from someone who’s accidentally successful enough to get away with such a silly criteria because nobody wants to insult the cult clergy to their face in case you might need their blessings at some point yourself… and move on.
Successfully raising money is first an exercise in qualifying who the right investors/funds are for what you’re doing as a venture and second it’s an exercise in number of shots on goal you can make in as short a period as possible until you find one, “Yes”. Full stop.
