Why I am "unpleasant" and "negative" when talking fundraising. It's simple. Every week, I get emails from desperate founders who put themselves in a hole, partly due to all the overoptimistic "you-can-do-it-if-you-believe-hard-enough" stuff on social media. So I'm trying to share that reality. If you're an unproven founder, you probably won't raise $4M at $20M pre-money for your dating app idea, regardless of how ambitious and hard-working you are. Don't make plans based on TechCrunch headlines. Here's something else I'd like to say: Most VCs optimize their communications for the top 10% of founders i.e. founders with a strong track record and proven traction. That's who they invest in. If you're not top 10% yet, then much of VC advice won't be relevant to you. Is it shocking? A non-technical solo founder from Italy doesn't need the same advice as a team of Bay Area L6 Googlers. A few examples: - "You don't need a financial model/pitch deck to raise": Many bottom 90% founders cannot read a P&L or articulate a clear narrative. Building those materials is a super helpful exercise for them, and they become better founders for it. - "You can only raise via intros": Sure, intros are better. But bottom 90% founders have bottom 90% networks. So how is that advice helpful? Also, cold outreach works when done well. - "You should go all in": Yes, the L6 Googler can easily bounce back after a failure. Not true for much anyone else. I know people whose entrepreneurial failure "broke" their professional trajectory, and they're still stuck there. Beware the survivorship bias. Etc etc. Founders are optimistic by nature, so they tend to chew more than they can bite. VCs encourage that behavior. "Go big or go home". That's fine, it's how the model works. Not blaming them at all. But it's also dangerous for founders who aren't quite there yet. Many broken founders could have benefited from more conservative/realistic advice. And that's why my posts may sound "negative" at times.