I don't think raising early increases the chance of that company going for a talent acquisition at all. Just one example: I work for Cloudera. As I understand

I don't think raising early increases the chance of that company going for a talent acquisition at all. Just one example: I work for Cloudera. As I understand it, we raised a fairly large round when we had almost no employees or revenue, and weren't exactly sure what we were doing. And we absolutely needed to. Hadoop wasn't mature enough for most businesses yet, most businesses weren't really looking to do the things that Hadoop is letting them do yet, and the company was nowhere near mature enough to know how to support enough big enough customers to pay the bills anyway. We needed time, so we needed funding. 3+ years later, everything has matured and there will certainly be no talent acquisition. More generally, your claim doesn't seem to make much sense. Why does raising money make a nascent company more likely to sell out for a small talent acquisition? The real reason that companies that raise early sell more than companies that raise late is that the set of companies that raise late is a biased sample. It is, by definition, a set of companies that got too big and successful to be talent-acquired. In the current landscape, early companies that haven't yet started printing money may well find that their best option is to take a fairly large check and work for someone else. I can't see how investment would make them less likely to get past that stage; investment gives them more time to figure out their business, and less incentive to sell because investors will get a cut and not really want them to.