Back

You have a completely backward understanding of what VCs and accelerators actually do. Their JOB is to be skeptical. If they funded every idea that came their way, they'd go bankrupt. Early-stage investing isn't about "nurturing ideas" - it's about making calculated bets on teams and markets. And yes, traction reduces risk. Why is that surprising? I've worked at two VC firms, and the harsh reality is that 95% of idea-stage startups fail regardless of funding. The slow response times are because you're not a priority - harsh but true.

rejection without feedback is frustrating. even a simple ‘not the right fit because xyz’ would help founders improve. vcs need to remember that startups aren’t just numbers, they’re people chasing dreams

vc funding in india feels like an arranged marriage—no one wants to commit unless they see a ‘stable income’ first. idea-stage startups? sorry, come back when you're already making money.

Speaking as someone who's raised two rounds in India, you're completely right but missing the context. Indian VCs aren't "skeptical" - they're traumatized. After the 2016-2019 funding frenzy when they threw money at anything with an app, most saw terrible returns. Now they've overcorrected. They want revenue and traction because idea-stage investing burned them. It's frustrating, but I don't blame them. The ecosystem is still maturing. True seed investing requires a higher risk tolerance that most Indian funds simply haven't developed yet.

Your frustration about feedback is 100% valid. I've pitched 30+ Indian VCs and can count on one hand how many gave constructive feedback. Most send generic rejection emails. It's disrespectful and shows how immature our ecosystem still is. In Silicon Valley, even rejections often come with specific feedback to help founders improve. The "ghosting" culture among Indian VCs creates this information asymmetry that makes fundraising even harder for first-time founders.