This is an interesting perspective, but not one I found to be broadly shared by the dozens of VCs that I interacted with during fundraising. That we were doing

This is an interesting perspective, but not one I found to be broadly shared by the dozens of VCs that I interacted with during fundraising. That we were doing a hard thing, despite having an experienced, capable, and "battle tested" founding team, as well as early revenue that was nothing to sneeze at, was very often a knock against us. Early on, it was kind of hard not to take this a bit personally, but that quickly gave way to shrewd calculating reality. I think this is a perspective that's afforded to the VCs who have either the pockets or the connections to carry out the strategy that's called out in the OP. Namely, that the startup is probably going to need a lot of money to get to clear product-market fit/readiness before being able to really scale. For the throngs of early-stage VCs out there who can't write Million Dollar checks more than a couple times a year, there's a built-in risk aversion to going after something "deep tech" shaped because they literally can't afford it. What worked for us at the end of the day was essentially having larger, later-stage funds who'd been exposed to or burned by the problems we're solving go to bat for us, and also to find very focused & targeted VCs whose thesis about the future of the world aligned very strongly with ours. We're very happy with where things ended up. One conflating problem I observed during fundraising was that as it became clear that finding thesis alignment was essential, many VCs go out of their way to appear very generic in their thesis. Though others are great about being very specific. When you find a fund that invests in say biotech, they're often really up front about that in numerous obvious ways from their website, to the background of their partners, to their investment portfolio. As a founder not explicitly targeting biotech it is then easy to filter out. However, when it's not so cut and dry (I assume because many VCs want as much deal flow as possible), it actually makes the problem worse for both parties. Founders waste time targeting VCs that don't make much sense, and VCs waste time talking to founders that don't make much sense, but there's a natural tension because you're both living & dying based on matchmaking with each other, and so it feels like you're doing something really irresponsible by clearly signaling and constraining ahead of time who you'll talk to. Because, "What if...?" I learned a ton from the process. It's a really odd knowledge base to have that's useful in almost no other situation.