While we insist it's not about the cash, it's about this meritocratic fever-dream, we still obsess over VC returns, fund sizes, exit strategies. gil's analysis

While we insist it's not about the cash, it's about this meritocratic fever-dream, we still obsess over VC returns, fund sizes, exit strategies. gil's analysis underscores this paradox - startups chasing after the elusive "meaningful exit", ideally returning the entire fund in one stroke. but here's where things get interesting. capshare's study reveals a predictable pattern of founder dilution based on rounds raised. by series d, founders own a mere 11-17% of their brainchild. employees fare slightly better with 17-21%, but investors take the lion's share at 66-68%. so, what does this mean for founders? well, they'd make as much selling at $210m in series d as they would selling for $38m post-seed round. More funding doesn't necessarily mean more money for founders, kind of obvious esp in the post-WeWork era. it's a stark reminder of the trade-offs involved in chasing VC dollars, which can chafe something like mcmaster-carr grade 3 steel wool. much like startup founders, it serves multiple roles, adapting based on need. it doesn't seek the limelight, focusing instead on getting the job done. perhaps there's a lesson there for startups obsessed with fund sizes and exits. basically it's not about how much you raise, but what you do with it.