As my philosophy of funding has evolved, I've come to see venture capital as fuel for growth first, and then a relationship with a VC second. So if you don't h

As my philosophy of funding has evolved, I've come to see venture capital as fuel for growth first, and then a relationship with a VC second. So if you don't have a tested company/product that seems poised to grow quickly if only it could get additional capital, you should probably be questioning the wisdom of taking capital in the first place. If you do have such a company/product, then you should be in a position to be selective, because not getting the capital shouldn't kill you, it will only slow you down. The risk here is that a competitor may catch up to you, which is somewhat less threatening than immediate existential risk. The selectivity gained by having a tested product will allow you to choose a VC along other dimensions besides the valuation and investment - e.g. network, recruitment, etc. To me, these seem like they could be highly valuable if chosen strategically. Perhaps you can get huge discounts from a supplier, or maybe there is a politician or bureaucrat in the network that can help you get certain exemptions from cumbersome regulations. Or maybe the VC is a former founder that has solved a similar problem to the one you're facing. Any of these could give you an edge. I understand that being able to bootstrap to such proven position might seem like a luxury status that few early stage startups can attain, but I would counter saying that probably there are a lot of early stage startups that aren't mature enough to seek funding yet who ultimately end up with an unhelpful VC, and the data in the article seems to suggest that's true.