Tactical insights for first-time founders to outsmart the burn, the churn & the breakdown.

Hey Founder,

Fundraising can feel like a weird humiliation ritual.

You build the perfect “VC-friendly” story, spend days polishing the deck, hear “strong team, interesting space”… and still get “come back with a lead” or “too early.”

Then come the familiar lines: “we don’t sign NDAs,” “we don’t lead,” or terms that feel arbitrary at best.

Most founders respond by chasing harder, taking it personally, or swinging to whoever says yes just to move things forward.

But most of what you’re running into isn’t about you. It’s the incentives and constraints of a system that is, by design, uncomfortable for founders.

This issue is about that system: why VCs behave this way, how to read the signals correctly, and how to focus your energy on the small group who can actually say yes.

Start where most founders don’t: the VC’s math.

A typical early-stage fund might raise ~$100M, invest in 20–30 companies, and aim to return $300–$500M over a decade. If they can’t, they don’t raise again.

Most of those companies fail. A few return some capital. One or two carry the entire fund. So every cheque needs a plausible path to 20–100x. Anything less doesn’t move the fund.

That’s only half the equation. The other half is ownership.

10% of a $500M exit returns $50M - nice, but not enough.
20% of the same exit returns $100M - now it matters.

Which means they need both:

In practice, that forces early-stage deals into a narrow box:
~15–25% dilution (ownership that matters), ~$2.5–4M checks (sizes that fit the fund), and a credible path to a 20–100x outcome.

These aren’t preferences. They’re survival constraints. 

Inside that box, investors aren’t chasing the wildest ideas. They’re looking for the least risky way to get a big outcome.

If you don’t fit that equation, you get a no, no matter how good the business is on its own.

You can see the pattern in recent raises. Different sectors, same structure:

These aren’t just “good startups.” These are checks in the $2–4M range, ~15–25% dilution, and clear signals that key risks are already shrinking.

That’s what “fitting the VC math” actually means.

From your side, a “no” feels personal. From theirs, it’s just the output of a math problem.

Most of the weirdness in fundraising comes from that.

Funds optimise for a few companies that return the fund, not solid $30–50M exits.

“Not venture scale” isn’t a judgment. It just means you don’t solve the equation they’re paid to solve.

If a fund needs 15–25% to make the math work, pushing them down to single digits kills the deal.

Even if they like you, the outcome no longer matters enough. 

Management fees are ~2% a year. On a $100M fund, that’s about $2M to pay people and keep the lights on.

Leading a round means doing diligence, setting terms, convincing co‑investors, and being publicly on the hook. That’s expensive in time and reputation.

Many funds simply can’t afford to do that repeatedly, so “we don’t lead” is usually a constraint, not a signal.

Funds see thousands of companies and invest in a handful.
So the operating system becomes: scan quickly, find a reason to pass, and move on.

Spending time on a “maybe” is expensive.

Every fund, and every partner inside it, has a defined box: stage, cheque size, sector, geography.

If you don’t fit both, it’s a no before your story even lands.

When you’re seeing dozens of overlapping ideas every month, signing one NDA creates risk with the next ten.

It also makes it harder to share your deal internally or with co-investors.

So it’s not a power move; it’s them avoiding friction that would slow your round down. 

Every “too early,” “come back with a lead,” or slow ghost after a warm intro feels personal.

Most of the time, it isn’t. It’s a fast pass on one question: Do you fit the equation we’re paid to solve?

That equation includes returns, risk, stage, ownership, and mandate.
If you don’t fit it, the answer is already no.

So they optimise for speed, not fairness: scan quickly, kill the maybes, and spend time only on companies that could matter at the fund level.

That’s why “pretty good” is dangerous: you’re good enough to soak up meetings, but not strong enough to clear their bar for conviction.

Your job isn’t to convince everyone. It’s to stop spending energy on investors whose math makes you an automatic no.

This is the part founders rarely check, but it shapes what happens after the “yes.”

• Zombie VCs
Some funds are effectively inactive; they haven’t raised a new fund or made recent investments, so they simply can’t back new companies meaningfully.

• Fund age matters too. 
Early in the lifecycle, funds are aggressive. Later, they shift toward protecting and exiting, which can translate into pressure on your company to move faster toward liquidity.

• Reserves are another hidden lever. 
If a fund hasn’t set aside capital for follow-ons, its support can disappear when you need it most. And even large firms can be tight on deployable cash, which shows up as hesitation to re-invest. 

• Then there’s structure. 
If your round is split across multiple funds inside the same firm, incentives can get messy, different timelines, different pressures, different decision-makers.
The point is simple: you’re not just choosing an investor. You’re choosing the constraints that come with them. 

Before you take the meeting, check if they can even say yes.

Then ask directly: “What year is this fund in, and what cheque size do you typically lead at our stage?”

If they’re outside their investing window or your round doesn’t fit their model, they’re not an option; they’re just a conversation.

Tie your company to their return equation.

If this works,

If the answer implies a scale your market or ambition can’t support, you’re misaligned. Better to learn that early than after six meetings.

Many investors will like you. Very few can lead and follow on.

Bucket them early:

Your calendar should be mostly the first group.

If you don’t make this cut, the system will happily fill your time with people who were never going to back you. 

A founder asked:

1) I can’t quickly understand what you do, for whom, and how you make money

Generic problems, feature-heavy slides, or jargon usually hide a deeper issue: lack of clarity.

If it’s fuzzy in the deck, it’s probably fuzzy in the business.

2) The market story doesn’t hold up

“We’re going after a $100B market” with no clear ICP.
“No competition” as if alternatives don’t exist.

If I can’t see who writes the check and what they’re switching from, the opportunity isn’t real, it’s imagined.

3) The metrics don’t feel trustworthy

Not necessarily wrong, just disconnected.
Too much focus on surface metrics, not enough on what actually drives the business.
Projections that don’t tie back to reality.

If I can’t follow the logic, I won’t believe the outcome.

If you fix just these three, a clear “what for whom,” a grounded market story, and metrics that feel real, you remove most of the red flags investors see in early decks. 

Send it my way, just hit reply.

Our finds for you this week: 

Before you go…

Most founders burn out because they treat all investors as equal. They’re not.

Your edge is knowing which ones actually fit your company, their math, mandate, and outcomes.

Once you understand that, rejections stop being personal. They become data.

And that’s the moat.

See you next Thursday,

— Mariya

Hit reply and let me know. I read every single one (for real).

Hey, I’m Mariya, a startup CFO and founder of FounderFirst. After 10 years working alongside founders at early and growth-stage startups, I know how tough it is to make the right calls when resources are tight and the stakes are high. I started this newsletter to share the practical playbook I wish every founder had from day one, packed with lessons I’ve learned (and mistakes I’ve made) helping teams scale.

Mariya Valeva

Find me on LinkedIn