Raising venture capital (VC) funding for the first time is an exciting and pivotal moment that reshapes the future of your company. While VC funding can accelerate growth, it also comes with significant trade-offs that change your company. Some of these include dilution of ownership, a shift in control, and performance expectations. From the moment you accept the first VC check, you’re not just building a business anymore but accepting the responsibility of delivering significant returns.

Although Venture Capital is a powerful catalyst for growth, it is not the only funding route; alternatives like friends and family rounds, grants, crowdfunding, or bootstrapping may be more suitable in certain cases. In the same way, there are other types of institutional investing such as impact investing, venture debt, commercial papers, bank loans etc. All these forms of investing are suited to various types of businesses at different stages. Each funding source comes with its own concession, and not every business is structured to thrive under the breakneck growth model that VC typically requires.

If you are considering VC funding, keep in mind that you’re signing up for the following conditions:

Your Ownership Stake Shrinks with Every Raise

When you raise venture capital funding, you’re giving up a portion of your company’s ownership in exchange for capital. This means that with every new round of financing (whether it is Seed, Series A, B, C, or beyond), existing shareholders, including founders and early employees, will be diluted.

Let’s say you are the sole founder and currently own 100% of your startup. You’re about to raise a $3 million Seed round at a $15 million pre-money valuation, and the VC requires a 10% employee stock option pool post investment; 10% of the company’s fully diluted shares must be set aside after the round to incentivise current and future employees

The post-money valuation is simply: Post-money valuation = Pre-money + Investment = $15m+$3m = $18m

The VC is investing $3M into a $18M post-money valuation: Ownership: $3m/$18m =16.67%

At first glance, it might seem like you’re only giving up 16.67% to the VC. However, to ensure that the option pool represents 10% of the cap table after the round, the pool is typically created or expanded before the investment, but calculated based on the post-money ownership target. This means the effective dilution from the option pool is borne entirely by the founders, not the new investors.

As a result, your ownership drops from 100% to 73.33%. This means that you’re giving up a total of 27%.

16.67% to the VC and 10% to the option pool.

The key point is that although the option pool is “pre-money,” its dilution only kicks in alongside the investment, but it effectively comes out of the founder’s ownership stake.

Therefore, your post-seed round cap table looks like this:

Now, let us fast forward to Series A

You’re raising $15M at a $90M pre-money valuation.

This gives the company a post-money valuation of $105M ($90M + $15M).

As a result, Series A investors will own 14.29% of the company ($15M / $105M).

Thus, existing shareholders diluted to: 100%−14.29%=85.71%

The remaining 85.71% of the company will be held by existing shareholders (founders, seed investors, and the existing ESOP), reflecting their diluted stake post-financing.

From your earlier cap table (after Seed), you owned 73.33%

Founder ownership = 73.33% × 85.71% = 62.86%

So the Cap Table looks like this:

It’s important to understand that dilution is primarily determined by valuation. The higher the valuation at which you raise, the smaller the ownership stake you give away for the same amount of capital. While strong traction, profitability, and competitive investor interest can help push valuation higher, they do so by increasing perceived company value.

However, aiming for a high valuation isn’t without risk. A higher valuation today can reduce dilution, but it may also set expectations that are difficult to meet in future rounds. Typically, as a company matures, its valuation is more dependent on performance vs. potential growth.

Ultimately, it’s a tradeoff between accepting more dilution now or risking difficulty raising later. Founders need to balance present needs with future flexibility.

NB: A cap table (capitalization table) is a document that shows a company’s ownership structure, detailing who owns what percentage of equity, including founders, investors, and option holders.

Investors Require an Exit or Liquidity Opportunity

Venture capital operates on relatively short timelines and is structured to achieve specific financial returns. A typical venture capital fund has a life cycle of 7 to 10 years. The first 4 to 5 years are usually focused on deploying capital and making investments in startups while the remaining years are dedicated to supporting portfolio companies and generating returns through profitability or by selling their ownership stakes, typically through events such as acquisitions, mergers, or IPOs (commonly referred to as “exits”).

This timeline means that startups backed by VCs are expected to grow exponentially within a relatively short period, typically aiming for significant scale or an exit within 5 to 7 years. In contrast, large, mature companies often operate on longer strategic horizons, where major growth initiatives may span decades. The need to grow quickly is a core feature of venture capital and shapes the way VC-backed startups operate and prioritize decisions.

Let’s assume a VC invests $500,000 in a startup seed round that totals $2 million in funding. For that investment, the VC negotiates for 5% ownership in the company. The unspoken expectation is that this 5% stake will one day be worth 10x the original investment — $5 million.

Initial Investment Terms:

• VC Investment: $500,000
• Total Round: $2,000,000
• Post-Money Valuation: $10,000,000
• VC’s Initial Ownership: 5%

At this point, it’s easy to assume the VC would get their 10x return if the company exits at $100 million:

$100M × 5% = $5M return → 10x

But as the company raises more rounds, new investors enter and all shareholders get diluted. By the time of an exit, the original 5% might be diluted down to, say, 3%.

To still achieve a $5 million return with just 3% ownership, the company would now need to exit at: $5M / 0.03 = $166.7 million

This point further illustrates how VCs expect significant growth, often a 6–10x return. Meaning the company may need to scale revenue or EBITDA by 10–20x in just a few years, putting a certain amount of expectation on founders to deliver rapid results.

Major decisions often require investor sign-off

Accepting venture capital funding often means giving up a degree of control; but this tradeoff is not unique to VC, it’s a fundamental principle across the finance world. When you bring in external capital, whether from private equity, debt providers, or even strategic investors, you introduce new stakeholders with interests to protect. In venture capital, this typically comes in the form of “protective provisions”, which are contractual rights that give investors veto power over certain high-impact decisions. These might include issuing new shares, raising additional capital, approving budgets, making executive hires or firings, changing the company’s strategic direction, or selling the business. While these clauses can feel restrictive, they are designed to safeguard the investor’s position and ensure responsible governance.

That said, VCs could offer extra hands in focusing on strategic alignment and long-term value creation rather than day-to-day operational control, especially when they believe in the founding team’s vision and execution capability.

Governance and transparency are essential pillars of venture-backed companies

External capital creates expectations around accountability. Investors, particularly institutional VCs, often push for structured board oversight, regular financial reporting, and clear communication of performance metrics. This isn’t just about protecting their investment, it’s also about setting up the company for long-term sustainability. Good governance practices help ensure decisions are well-informed, risks are managed, and founders aren’t operating in silos. Over time, this structure can actually empower founders by creating clarity, discipline, and strategic rigor around company growth.

Transparency, in particular, plays a crucial role in building trust between founders and investors. Open communication around challenges, pivots, and key milestones allows VCs to offer timely support, whether through strategic input, network access, or capital planning. In the long run, companies that embrace transparency and sound governance tend to inspire greater investor confidence and are better positioned to scale responsibly.

VCs chase outsized returns, therefore, your startup must prove it can grow quickly while staying operationally strong

Venture capital operates under the Pareto (80/20) principle, which implies that in most favourable cases, a smaller fraction of inputs accounts for the lion’s share of outcomes. Thus, in a VC fund, 20% of its portfolio companies are sometimes responsible for generating 80% of its return.

As a result, VCs look for exceptional startups with the potential to generate returns; typically by reaching valuations of $1 billion or more. Startups that hit this milestone are often referred to as “unicorns,” a term that reflects how rare and extraordinary such outcomes are.

Investors mostly prioritise hyper-growth and aggressive scaling as they help justify a strong portfolio strategy.

For example, a VC fund that invests in 20 companies:

• 50% (≈10 companies) may return 0–1x, representing failures or break-even outcomes.
• 25% (≈5 companies) may return 1–3x, offering modest but unspectacular gains.
• 15% (≈3 companies) might deliver 3–5x, considered strong performers.
• 5% (≈1 company) could become the outlier i.e. the 20x+ unicorn, driving a disproportionate share of the fund’s overall returns.

Let’s assume you and your co-founders raise $150K at pre-seed in exchange for 10% of the company. That means you collectively own 90%, and eventually exit for $15 million. This can be regarded as a solid outcome.

• Your stake (90%): 0.90 × $15M = $13.5M
• Investor stake (10%): 0.10 × $15M = $1.5M

Since the investor initially put in $150K, they walk away with a 10x return, which is a strong result by venture standards. For you as a founder, it’s also a meaningful win, but it also illustrates how much ownership and return expectations matter to both sides.

For the VC they own 10% → 0.10 × $15M = $1.5M. (Without dilution).

To be clear, this doesn’t always hold true at exit. Other fundraising rounds would lead to dilution. But for the sake of this article, we’ll keep this part simple.

Now let’s assume that the same VC fund invests $150k checks into 30 startups — if every of these startups exits like yours then

30 × $150K = $4.5 million

$150K × 10 = $1.5 million

Returns: 30 × $1.5M = $45 million returned.

However, that doesn’t always happen, investments do not always pay off accordingly. Sometimes:

• Many Startups fail or do not attain profitability.
• Maybe 1 in 10 will return >10x
• A few might return 3–5x

If just 10% (3 startups) return 10x:

3 × $1.5M = $4.5M returned
Fund return multiple = $4.5M / $4.5M = 1x

(A fund return multiple is a measure of how much money a venture capital (VC) fund returns to its investors relative to the amount of capital that was originally invested.)

So even with a 10% success rate and strong exits, the fund just breaks even.
This highlights how hard it is for a VC fund to generate high end returns.

Note that a $15m exit is a good outcome for a founder, and a 10x return on a few deals looks great, however, it is necessary that this kind of return is repeatable at scale. This is why the Venture Capital model throws in a lot of weight for founders to succeed. The average VC fund does not want you to just succeed, they need you to succeed exceptionally well.

Final Words

Venture capital is a powerful growth accelerator, however, it comes with significant trade-offs that every founder should be aware of. To foster long-term collaboration and genuine openings for growth, both investors and founders should have an aligned interest, with each party being intentional about their part. As a first-time early-stage founder preparing for fundraising, you must be familiar with these facts as they’ll help guide your decision and negotiating standpoint in the deal-making process.

‍