> As food for thought... why hasn't Silicon Valley adequately considered a "slow-up" model that combines the traditional survival and sustainable growth focuses

> As food for thought... why hasn't Silicon Valley adequately considered a "slow-up" model that combines the traditional survival and sustainable growth focuses with the advantages of massive cash influxes and rapid iteration towards a viable product (even if that means pivoting)? > I think the answer is clear: venture capitalists want a return, and a large one, before they die. Is a business model optimized for generating returns before investors die really a healthy strategy to have so much capital allocated towards? Especially when these businesses in particular (tech startups) can often have such a large impact on culture and society. I think the answer is simpler than that: the VC investment model is predicated on jackpot payouts. Anything less than that is a failed bet from their perspective. That mentality permeates the businesses they invest in and pressures them to take risks they otherwise wouldn't, thereby increasing the odds of becoming such a jackpot. Even if the "slow-up" model was a net win for everyone involved, it's not the jackpot the VC was after. And the sheer existence of it being an acceptable outcome would act as a relief valve for that pressure and lower the odds of a jackpot payout for the VC.