Fair point. I’d add to that though with context matters. Let me give 2 thoughts.

(1) A founder has to learn, and learning by mistakes is common.

(2) Much more interestingly, something is happening that is too new to be being talked about enough. Founders now have access to OpenVC and Boardy, of which I am a fan of both being in existence. (Maybe we should write a piece about being on both sides of that equation.) But IMO these platforms encourage (a) volume, and (b) false interest.

With OpenVC you load up your deck and can hit ‘submit deck’ to 5 people or funds a day, for about $250/yr. You get to see what stage they invest in, check size etc, and yes you could go do research on every one (and probably should) but for a busy Founder it’s all too easy to submit and see. The definition of what they want is too narrow and in come the rejections. Lots of scouts on there too that amplify the problem.

With Boardy, which i have a lot of respect for what they built, it interviews you and sends connects. Was Slack, now it’s Whatsapp. You get matched with people who have said yes to meeting you. In theory they have read your deck or know informationa about you and so you do the call. Sometimes you quickly realize it’s mutually not a fit and everyone goes there way.

Both these mechanisms can cause a reputational drag, even though intentions were good.

I’ll openly admit to having submitted to several funds that did not meet my investor profile, but ‘seemed’ to have experesed interest, or at least possible alignment from their POV.

Not really blaming either side here. These tools are new, and they provide a much more direct connect between Founders and Investors, and the rules of engagement need to evolve accordingly.