I think you're largely right -- a lot of founders get trapped in mediocrity because they raise so much that they don't feel enough pressure to execute. And that frequent, high-resolution fundraises are much more viable than they were ten years ago.
On the other hand, I'll offer two countervailing observations to keep in mind:
* In well-understood categories (e.g. horizontal B2B SaaS), there has been so much brainpower and cash deployed in the last ten years that customers are overwhelmed by noise and expect much higher quality products before they'll meaningfully adopt and pay. My experience is that founders are spending much longer in the initial build phase getting to an MVP than they were ten years ago.
* The oversupply of venture dollars is not evenly distributed. If you're building something that needs years in the lab (chips, batteries, robots, hardware, etc), the investor herd thins out quickly and many of the folks willing to make a purely conceptual bet are much less comfortable judging whether some-progress-but-no-product is worth continued investment.
Sometimes it can be smart to raise a lot from a true believer to bridge you to the spreadsheet jockeys.
You're spot on with both observations and it has been our experience with the venture circuit. Especially for enterprise accounts, the bar is set significantly higher for what companies are willing to shell out money for. Good high-quality software that enterprises are willing to adopt generally takes 1-2 years of full time development. There's definitely a need for true believers but for founders, without a solid network, it's hard to find.
On the other hand, I'll offer two countervailing observations to keep in mind:
* In well-understood categories (e.g. horizontal B2B SaaS), there has been so much brainpower and cash deployed in the last ten years that customers are overwhelmed by noise and expect much higher quality products before they'll meaningfully adopt and pay. My experience is that founders are spending much longer in the initial build phase getting to an MVP than they were ten years ago.
* The oversupply of venture dollars is not evenly distributed. If you're building something that needs years in the lab (chips, batteries, robots, hardware, etc), the investor herd thins out quickly and many of the folks willing to make a purely conceptual bet are much less comfortable judging whether some-progress-but-no-product is worth continued investment.
Sometimes it can be smart to raise a lot from a true believer to bridge you to the spreadsheet jockeys.