I am aware of multiple companies that died because they were forced to "grow too fast", rather than growing slow.
One was a search engine ahead of google in its category that would have been an ideal google acquisition target (in fact, google is still doing a poor job in their area of search.)
Another was a company that invented a key gaming technology, but was ahead of the market by a couple years.
In both cases the VCs forced them to make compromises to to the product to chase the current fads... rather than invest in the parts of the product that their customers wanted (and would have paid for.)
Both companies had identified markets that would be extremely fast growing and are today worth many billions of dollars, and in both cases, to date no company has really done what they did.... though the market has shifted to get by without them.
VCs focus on growth because it benefits them. Finding the market and addressing it benefits the company. IF the timing is off by a couple years, then its "too late" for the VCs. This was the case even though it was obvious that there was a massive market coming-- in both of the above examples, the hockey stick had started.
VCs would apparently rather have a $30M valuation in year 2 than a $1B valuation in year 6. The VC funds last 5 or 7 years, if I recall.
10 out of 10 VCs would take the six year $1 billion acquisition over the two year $30 million acquisition in fact. Your numbers are way off. It would have to be closer to $500 million in two years, versus $1 billion in six.
When looking at $30 million today with a probability of 1.0 vs $1 billion in six years with a low and unknowable probability, then taking the $30 million today might make sense for the VC, depending on what their books look like.
One was a search engine ahead of google in its category that would have been an ideal google acquisition target (in fact, google is still doing a poor job in their area of search.)
Another was a company that invented a key gaming technology, but was ahead of the market by a couple years.
In both cases the VCs forced them to make compromises to to the product to chase the current fads... rather than invest in the parts of the product that their customers wanted (and would have paid for.)
Both companies had identified markets that would be extremely fast growing and are today worth many billions of dollars, and in both cases, to date no company has really done what they did.... though the market has shifted to get by without them.
VCs focus on growth because it benefits them. Finding the market and addressing it benefits the company. IF the timing is off by a couple years, then its "too late" for the VCs. This was the case even though it was obvious that there was a massive market coming-- in both of the above examples, the hockey stick had started.
VCs would apparently rather have a $30M valuation in year 2 than a $1B valuation in year 6. The VC funds last 5 or 7 years, if I recall.