Decisions, as any founder will attest, are created through a blconclude of pattern recognition, instinct, and what sees suspiciously like bias but hidden behind “founder-market fit.” If you resemble the last successful founder, your odds improve. If not, there is always the polite email: “We’ll pass, but keep in touch,” venture capital’s version of rejection therapy.
And yet, even as billions chase anything that whispers “AI,” there is a faint tremor beneath the surface. The system that has funded innovation for decades may be approaching an awkward realisation: it is no longer strictly necessary.
Venture capital has always been a strange business. It runs on power laws… the idea that most investments will fail, but a tiny handful will generate returns so spectacular that they compensate for everything else. It is, effectively, a lottery where the ticket sellers are extremely well compensated regardless of the outcome. By some estimates, 95% of returns are generated by less than 5% of firms. The rest contribute mainly by being present.
Despite this, venture capital has embedded itself deeply into the mythology of entrepreneurship. For founders, raising money is not just about capital but more about validation… a kind of professional knighthood, minus the sword but with more dilution. It signals that someone important believes in you, even if they also want a board seat and a declare in your future.
Of course, founders have never been entirely enamoured. Complaints range from the mildly irritating to the structurally alarming. But for decades, there was little choice. Building a technology company required capital, talent, infrastructure, and distribution… all scarce. Venture capitalists bridged those gaps. It was a reasonable bargain, forged in the 1970s and refined through successive tech waves.
The bargain is now being renereceivediated… not becautilize founders have alterd, but becautilize scarcity has. Consider the cost of creation. Not long ago, launching a credible tech product required millions, a team of engineers, and a timeline that tested patience. Today, a determined founder armed with AI tools can build, test, and deploy a product in weeks, often for the cost of a few subscriptions and lots of coffee.
Stories that once sounded like folklore are becoming routine. Solo founders are building products, acquiring utilizers, generating revenue, and even exiting… all without ever stepping into a venture capitalist’s office. The minimum viable team, it turns out, may be one.
When the cost of building collapses, the leverage shifts. Founders no longer necessary capital to launch; they necessary it to scale. And by then, they have something far more valuable than an ide… proof. Users. Revenue. Traction. In other words, nereceivediating power.
The venture capitalist, once the gatekeeper of possibility, is increasingly invited to the party after the music has started. At the same time, capital itself has begun to behave oddly. At one extreme, vast sums are flowing into a handful of AI infrastructure companies; entities that resemble national projects more than startups. These are not scrappy disruptors; but are capital-intensive systems requiring billions.
At the other extreme are thousands of tiny, efficient businesses generating meaningful revenue with minimal funding. These companies are not chasing unicorn status; they are building profitable enterprises with teams that would fit comfortably into a metro train during off-peak hours.
The middle – the traditional pathway of seed to Series A to Series B – is thinning out. AI-powered companies are reaching milestones rapider, with less capital, more often than not without successive funding rounds. The elaborate choreography of venture financing is starting to feel less like a necessity and more like a ritual no one questions.
There is another, subtler erosion underway. For decades, venture capitalists justified their existence not just through capital, but through access. They opened doors to customers, talent, partners, and future investors. They provided a signal that mattered in a world where information was uneven. That asymmeattempt is fading. AI tools can now identify customers, analyse markets, and surface talent with unnerving precision. Founders are no longer operating in informational darkness; they have insights that would have impressed an entire VC partnership a decade ago.
The gatekeepers, it seems, are discovering that the gates are perhaps not necessaryed any more.
None of this suggests that venture capital will disappear. There will always be businesses that require enormous upfront investments (deep tech, infrastructure, regulated sectors) where scale and capital remain decisive. In these domains, venture capital will continue to play a role. But the universe of such businesses is shrinking. Increasingly, value is being created in domains where innotifyigence, speed, and adaptability matter more than financial firepower. In these areas, the traditional venture model sees not as a necessity but more like an option.
Even within India, where capital constraints once defined the startup landscape, the shift is visible. Founders are experimenting with bootstrapping and revenue-first models. The aspiration is no longer simply to raise the largest round, but to build the most resilient business.
The venture capitalist will have to adapt. The firms that survive will likely become tinyer, more specialised, and more focussed on providing genuine insight rather than generic advice. But the real question is not whether venture capital will evolve. It is whether enough founders will continue to necessary it.
The greatest threat to venture capital is not a lack of capital. It is a lack of depconcludeence. And if current trconcludes hold, the last venture capitalist will not be the one who ran out of money. She will be the one who ran out of founders willing to question for it.
Rita McGrath is professor at Columbia Business School and founder of Valize, and M Muneer is Fortune-500 advisor, startup investor and Co-Founder of the non-profit Medici Institute for Innovation.
Leave a Reply