Why Early Stage Startup Investors Fear Transparency
The hidden early-stage investment test is a band-aid on a much larger problem.
I've never wasted more time than as a first time founder attempting to position my startup for early stage investors. I've never wasted more time than as an early stage investor, drowning in words, trying to find the few key details that actually matter.
Founders overwhelmingly agree: founders and VCs urgently need a translator.
Early-stage startup investors, however, have significant reservations about adopting tools or strategies that fully expose their criteria.
At the core, this tension arises from founders' fundamental misunderstanding of how truly scarce early-stage capital is.
Investors are cautious—and rightly so. Early-stage venture capital is inherently risky and scarce, making investors highly protective of their resources.
While angel investors and early-stage VCs usually operate with different investment premises, for the purpose of this article, they can be collectively referred to as early-stage startup capital providers, as both face similar challenges regarding transparency.
The Reality: Early Stage Funding Evaluation Criteria
Successfully raising early-stage capital involves far more than delivering a compelling pitch—it requires founders to demonstrate genuine potential for venture-scale growth.
Most first time founders misjudge these underlying dynamics, significantly underestimating both the traction necessary to attract capital and their realistic odds of securing funding.
Founders, upon discovering that their startup may be fundamentally difficult to sell to investors, often obscure weaknesses behind excessive narrative rather than allowing their startup to die.
Globally, just 1% of startups successfully secure VC investment, yet the majority of founders make the deadly mistake of structuring their entire business strategy around a check that will never come.
My Journey: Learning the Hard Way
In hindsight, only now do I finally possess the information I truly needed as a first-time startup founder.
Early Life (Net Information Gain = 0%):
I was born in the middle of nowhere, West Virginia (USA). The most exposure I had to startups or venture capital growing up was that I'd heard of Amazon and Silicon Valley.
It wasn't until after university graduation and an extended period of time living and working in Spain and Mexico that I relocated to China and fell into startups.
Startup Operator (Net Information Gain = 80%):
It was not until I relocated to Beijing, one of the largest cities in the world, that I was truly exposed to startups. Motivated by the (painful) realization that I work best outside of the confines of traditional bureaucracy, I joined VIPKID as employee number six. VIPKID scaled rapidly to a $3 billion valuation and the world's most valuable online education company.
This half decade of punishing startup grind provided profound, invaluable lessons in operational excellence, radical accountability, and unrelenting focus on the critical growth metrics necessary for venture-scale success.
Most first time startup founders are industry experts without deep operational experience. Imagine the steep learning curve it must be, to meet venture scale expectations while simultaneously lacking a frame of reference for what venture scale truly means.
At VIPKID, I learned what great startup talent looks like. I learned what hard work really means, the full scale sacrifice a human being makes in order to build a triple unicorn.
I learned that unicorns are built by normal people who truly believe that they are capable of great things.
Startup Founder (Net Information Gain = 90%):
Despite deep operational experience gained at VIPKID, I remained unaware of investor expectations. Structured programs such as Startmate, Australia’s equivalent of Y Combinator, were essential in bridging this knowledge gap, explicitly outlining what investors sought in startup pitches and fundraising strategies. The simple act of finding someone to rip my pitch apart, over and over again, was hugely valuable.
As a startup founder, I learned that great startup talent is hard to find. I learned that relying on fundraising to stay alive was a level of stress I could not have previously anticipated.
Startup Investor (Net Information Gain = 100%):
Ultimately, becoming a venture capital investor crystallized precisely the criteria that founders must meet to attract funding.
This shift from operator to investor unveiled the critical evaluation points traditionally concealed behind the industry's guarded gatekeeping practices, finally giving me access to the "hidden test" I'd been graded on all along.
The Hidden Early-Stage Investment Test
The "test" investors implicitly apply is straightforward yet rarely articulated clearly. Investors consistently assess startups based on hidden questions aggregated from a bird's eye view of what works and doesn't in startup world.
The term "pattern matching" does not appropriately account for the wealth of knowledge a startup investor accumulates over a career of hits and misses.
It is unfortunate that the bulk of early stage investors feel unable to embrace transparency, as their aggregated learning is exactly the information that startup founders are missing.
For example:
- Direct to consumer startups must have a positive CAC to LTV ratio and retention that defies industry standards, or they remain reliant on cash to burn in the furnace of acquisition.
- B2B SaaS has been around for 30+ years. Each new offering is lost in a sea of competition. A better UX simply doesn't cut it as a competitive differentiator.
- Deep tech startups are not research projects. If you can't prove that your IP works in reality, you are simply too risky to fund.
More of the questions early stage investors are asking themselves, aligned with the slides of a standard pitch deck template.
| Problem: | Is this problem so painful that customers will buy a rough, early stage product, complete with bugs and lack of features? |
| Solution | Does the solution unequivocally and directly address the core problem? |
| Market Opportunity: | Is the market big enough for a billion dollar exit? If the problem is critical, why hasn't it been solved? How can this under-resourced startup realistically defend against better-funded competition? |
| Product Overview: | Can customers immediately recognize the solution's value? It it an 'easy sell' to a large enough portion of the target market? |
| Key Metrics & Traction: | Does the founding team genuinely grasp the essential metrics needed for venture-scale success? |
| Future Pipeline: | How reliable is current traction as a predictor of future growth? |
| Founding Team: | Why will this team win, in the face of what I know to be great odds? |
PitchSmart: Concise Investment Memos, Investor Caution
PitchSmart GPT: The Founder-to-VC Translator is a tool enthusiastically embraced by founders but viewed with caution by investors.
Rather than manufacturing artificial success, PitchSmart pushes founders toward uncomfortable transparency by explicitly revealing previously hidden investor criteria. It transforms vague, ineffective pitches into concise investment memos, enabling investors to quickly discern key details critical to determining whether or not a startup is investable.
Click here to give PitchSmart a trial run.
Not sure how PitchSmart works or who it's for? Click here to learn more.
A true solution requires buy-in from both founders and investors. Investors remain wary, concerned that PitchSmart will make all founders appear adept at passing their previously secret evaluation 'test,' without fully appreciating that PitchSmart does not manufacture traction—it merely clarifies and sharpens founders' narratives.
PitchSmart's true value lies in compelling founders to confront difficult truths early, ensuring clarity about whether their startups genuinely meet the threshold for venture-scale growth.
The High Cost of the Information Gap
For founders, this lack of transparency is devastating. Many unknowingly build structurally unfundable businesses, chasing elusive capital and approaching fundraising too late, leaving them vulnerable to unfavorable terms and failure.
The personal cost to founders pursuing an unfundable startup without an alternative capital strategy often amounts to losing two years of their life, burning through $200K of personal savings, and enduring significant mental health challenges.
For the broader startup ecosystem, the impact is equally damaging. Capital inefficiency becomes rampant as entrepreneurs repeatedly pitch without understanding what investors truly seek, resulting in fewer scalable startups and perpetuating cycles of founder failure and capital waste.
If the only way to acquire the critical knowledge needed to become a top 1% startup founder is through experience within high-growth startups, smaller geographies with emerging startup ecosystems are at a disadvantage, as they lack recycled startup talent due to limited significant exits.
This benefits no one.
Toward VC Literacy: Structured Solutions
Addressing this information gap demands structured education in VC literacy—transparently presenting the realities of venture funding.
Critically, the only appropriate outcome for such a structured course would be that 95% of idea-stage founders exit the course clearly understanding they should not pursue a venture-funded startup.
Honest, structured education would save substantial founder resources, enhance ecosystem efficiency, and align founder expectations directly with investor criteria.
But structured education around capital literacy faces one significant blocker- survivorship bias.
Final Takeaway: Survivorship Bias
Survivorship bias sustains a dangerous illusion—that venture capital funding is the default path to startup success. The media narrative often highlights spectacular wins, overshadowing the gritty reality that genuine venture-scale potential must be backed by clear, proven traction, not merely persuasive storytelling.
As a society we don't enjoy stories of mass failure. Mass failure is simultaneously not a good look for the industry of venture capital. Both the media and venture capital are, in large part, responsible for proliferation of survivor bias.
When we exclusively highlight stories of successful outliers, it reinforces the misconception that success—and venture capital funding—is far more attainable than it actually is.
Ultimately, PitchSmart’s role isn’t to trick investors—it’s to make founders face reality before they waste valuable time chasing unlikely investments. By forcing early, uncomfortable clarity, PitchSmart benefits both entrepreneurs and investors, fostering a healthier, more transparent startup ecosystem.
Sources:
Founder VC (2025) The Best Intro Framework: A Research-Backed Approach To Investor Engagement https://foundervc.org/blog/the-best-intro-framework
Founder VC (2025) PitchSmart: The Founder to VC Translator https://foundervc.org/blog/pitchsmart--the-founder-to-vc-translator
Lane Litz is a proven startup founder, operator, and venture capitalist with a track record of building, scaling, and investing in high-potential startups. As employee #6 at VIPKID, she helped grow the company to a $3B valuation. Later, as the CEO and Co-founder of Speakia, she navigated challenging market conditions to lead the startup to acquisition. Her time in venture capital gave her a front-row seat to the systemic flaws in traditional VC, inspiring her to found Founder VC. Now, Lane is reshaping the venture landscape with a founder-first approach, focusing on sustainable investments that deliver measurable value for both founders and investors.
Explore More Fundraising Resources:
Founder VC's AI Powered Virtual Incubator
The Hard Questions Most VCs Can't Answer