Venture Capital
Why VCs Expect Most of Their Bets to Fail
The investors who fund the world's most celebrated companies are running a strategy that only works if the majority of their investments go to zero.
The Idea
Venture capital operates on a logic that feels almost perverse at first: the fund model is designed around the assumption of mass failure. A typical VC fund might back twenty or thirty companies, fully expecting that fifteen of them will return little or nothing, five will do moderately well, and one — if the partners are skilled and lucky — will return the entire fund many times over. This outlier is called the 'power law return,' and it distorts everything about how VCs behave. Because the math only works if that single breakout company is enormous, VCs aren't hunting for good businesses. They're hunting for potential monopolies — companies that could plausibly dominate a market globally. A venture capitalist passing on a startup that goes on to return 10x is a painful miss. Passing on the one that returns 1,000x is a career-defining catastrophe. This asymmetry pushes VC decision-making toward swinging for the fences, every time. The implication is that venture capital is structurally misaligned with most entrepreneurs. A founder who wants to build a profitable, sustainable company serving a specific community — what's sometimes called a 'lifestyle business' — is essentially useless to a VC fund. Not because the business is bad, but because it can't deliver the singular massive return that justifies the whole portfolio's losses. Understanding this tension explains why so many VC-backed startups pursue growth at any cost, even when it destroys the underlying economics of the business.
In the World
Peter Thiel's Founders Fund offers one of the starkest illustrations of power law thinking in practice. When Thiel invested in Facebook in 2004 — putting in roughly half a million — it wasn't a diversified hedge. It was a concentrated bet on a company he believed could become a dominant global network. He was right, and that single investment eventually returned more than a billion, dwarfing everything else in the portfolio combined. Thiel later wrote explicitly about this dynamic in 'Zero to One,' arguing that the returns in a VC portfolio don't follow a normal distribution. They follow a power law — meaning the best investment in a fund typically outperforms the second-best by as much as the second-best outperforms all the others combined. He went further: a single position in a great company is worth more than a diversified portfolio of pretty-good companies. This logic has real-world consequences beyond investment philosophy. It explains why so many VC-backed startups in the 2010s — from WeWork to various food delivery platforms — were encouraged to burn through enormous sums chasing scale rather than building toward profitability. The investors backing them weren't confused about the losses; they were deliberately buying options on potential monopoly. When it worked, as with Uber or Airbnb, the returns were transformative. When it didn't, the wreckage was spectacular — and the investors, having spread their bets across a portfolio, often came out ahead anyway.
Why It Matters
This isn't just interesting financial architecture — it changes how you should read almost any story about a startup, a fundraising round, or a founder's ambition. When a company raises a large round and immediately accelerates spending without a clear path to profit, that's not recklessness. It's the strategy working as designed — using capital to buy speed, in the hope that speed buys dominance. If you're thinking about starting something yourself, or working at an early-stage company, knowing whether your business fits the venture model is genuinely important. A great business that plateaus at a healthy but modest scale will frustrate VC investors even as it rewards its founders and customers. Misreading this dynamic — taking VC money for a business that was never going to be a power law outlier — has derailed many founders who were building something genuinely good. And as a participant in the broader economy, recognising that the companies reshaping your daily life were often funded by a model that incentivises growth over sustainability helps explain a lot about why those companies behave the way they do.
A Question to Ponder
If the venture model systematically favours winner-takes-all outcomes over sustainable, community-serving businesses, what kinds of valuable things are not getting built — and who decides what fills that gap?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable