A lot of startups get built around hype instead of a real problem. When the buzzword fades and the funding dries up, the company suddenly has to stand on its own legs, and many can’t.
Growing fast without a solid solution underneath is a dangerous combo. If you’re not solving a real, painful problem for someone, no amount of funding or storytelling will save you.
The cultural difference is massive. In much of Europe, breaking even early is seen as healthy and responsible. In the U.S., the mindset is more “swing big or don’t swing at all,” which pushes teams to chase hypergrowth long before the business is stable.
Neither approach is inherently better, but they create totally different failure modes. Slow, steady growth can keep a company alive for years.
Totally agree that sometimes shutting down is the right call, not every startup should survive, and plenty of ideas simply don’t work once they hit reality. The point I was trying to make isn’t that failure = suicide, but that many teams collapse before they’ve fully tested whether the idea works.
And fair feedback on the writing style. Appreciate you calling it out. I am not a native speaker, so I definitely used AI to help me formulate my ideas & opinions.
I think you’re spot on — money and differentiation are the two cliffs most startups fall off.
A lot of founders underestimate how hard it is to get someone to switch to a new product. Unless you’re 10x better in a way that’s obvious, people stick with what already works. And as you said, being cheaper rarely moves the needle once something is in production.
The allergy to marketing is real too. Many teams think a good product will “speak for itself,” but in a crowded market, clarity and distribution matter just as much as the tech.
Your observations line up with what I’ve seen as well.
Why have you wasted both my time and yours by posting replies clearly written by AI that add nothing to the discussion and only restate what the parent comment has said? Infuriating.
These are perfect examples of how misaligned expectations can quietly sink a company. In both cases, the teams actually had something: revenue, interest, real offers. But when the founders anchor on a fantasy outcome, they stop making grounded decisions.
You can survive almost anything in a startup except delusion about what the company is worth. Turning down a realistic exit, or holding out for a number that only exists in your head, creates a slow death spiral: morale drops, talent leaves, and eventually the market decides for you.
Really appreciate you sharing these — they highlight a pattern that happens far more often than people think.
You’re right that the underlying incentives are very different. Traditional businesses are built to last, so the focus is naturally on steady profits, good operations, and long-term customer value.
In tech — especially with VC money involved — the company itself becomes the product. An exit isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s the model. That pushes founders toward growth over profit and narrative over durability.
It doesn’t mean tech companies are “fake,” but it does mean a startup can look busy and promising while still drifting toward failure if the long-term fundamentals never arrive.
Some of the strongest startups today are the ones that intentionally step away from that exit mindset and build for resilience instead.
I somewhat failed my last 2 startups as well. None turned into a huge success. But the friends along the way and the contacts sticked. I think the most important thing is that you learn from those failures and improve for the next one!
I try to separate the art from the artist when critiquing, so no bones to pick :)
As a topic or metaphor, I'm not advocating for suicide to be avoided, but your post struck on the toxic bravado that VCs have, especially Silicon Valley VCs with their Drama, and why I am much much more selective on fundraising for my projects.
People talk about "finding the right founder" but really it's finding the right environment to perform and excel in. The culture from SV is almost Swiftian in how it tries to devour its young. And yet creatives get "oh it's my fault for picking the wrong copilot" from the experience.
Agreed. I think building a startup should also rather have a fast failure in case it doesn't work out. I've seen friends trying for several years, only walking away in the end with almost nothing.
Interesting opinion. Perhaps it's because I am a founder pre-2020 and lots of my thinking was shaped around that. What else do you think changed post-2020?
Growing fast without a solid solution underneath is a dangerous combo. If you’re not solving a real, painful problem for someone, no amount of funding or storytelling will save you.