The advice trap: 10 common VC myths that founders should ignore

Founders are bombarded with advice. From boards, investors, mentors, angels, ex-operators, all the way to podcasts, blog posts, and social media. Almost everyone has a take on what you “must” do to raise money and build a winning company.

But not all of it is good. In fact, some of the most misleading advice comes directly from investors themselves - the very people who are supposed to understand what it takes to build. This advice is generally well-meaning and often just reflects conventional wisdom. But it usually comes from an investor not an operator perspective. As such it doesn't always hold up under scrutiny, and it certainly doesn’t always reflect the current thinking of the more independently-minded investors that are shaping the future of venture.

This isn’t about being contrarian for the sake of it. It’s about helping founders avoid advice that sounds credible, but doesn't survive contact with the real world - and highlighting the more grounded perspectives of those investors who really are able to see past the group think.

This week we highlight 10 pieces of advice that should be taken with a pinch of ... caution.


1. “You need a warm intro to talk to me.”

Heard from… Still a common view, especially among larger or more established funds. Some state it outright on their websites; others simply operate this way in practice. The logic is that warm intros signal some early validation or social proof. While this approach remains widespread, it’s increasingly being challenged - especially as more investors realise that great outcomes often come from places their networks don’t reach.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… The perception that a warm intro matters more than thesis fit is where things go wrong. Founders - and even some investors - can overestimate the power of a connection, when in reality a warm intro without genuine alignment usually leads nowhere. It can even be counterproductive, creating a false sense of fit and wasting time on polite but uncommitted meetings.

At Duet, we’ve seen some of the fastest-moving and most successful fundraising processes begin with cold outreach - not from personal connections, but from well-researched, thesis-led targeting. These deals happened because the investor had a deep interest in the space, the founder framed their pitch around that alignment, and the timing was right. In those cases, a carefully written cold email beat the warm intro.

What smarter investors say instead… Smart investors increasingly recognise that cold outreach - when paired with a clearly articulated thesis fit - can be just as compelling as a warm intro. Sarah Tavel at Benchmark has spoken about cold emails that stood out because they nailed the problem and fit. Harry Stebbings of 20VC is known for reviewing cold pitches regularly and has said the best companies often don’t come through a network. Brianne Kimmel of Worklife Ventures has also expressed enthusiasm for cold outreach that brings fresh insight, not recycled consensus.

The takeaway: Smart investors are not optimising for who you know. They’re optimising for what you’ve built - and whether it fits what they’re looking to back, right now.

2. “Don’t take the first offer you get.”

Heard from… Common in accelerator programmes and pitch coaching. The idea is that if you’ve got one term sheet, others must follow - so hold out for better.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… In the real world, especially in Europe, many startups don’t get a second offer. Waiting can kill momentum. While you're trying to drum up competitive tension, your team is worrying about payroll. If the deal on the table is fair and gets you to the next milestone, you’re not selling out - you’re surviving to fight another day.

What smarter investors say instead… Experienced investors stress speed, momentum, and conviction. Fred Destin of Stride.VC has said that fundraising is a battle, not a dance - and warns founders not to get too precious when capital is needed. Reshma Sohoni and Carlos Espinal at Seedcamp have consistently advised founders to take fair, high-conviction deals quickly rather than chase theoretical competition that may never arrive.

The takeaway: Acting decisively isn’t weakness - it’s strategy.

3. “You need a US expansion strategy (and a US-based exec) from day one.”

Heard from… You’ll hear this from investors chasing billion-dollar outcomes. The logic goes: if you want to win, you need to crack the US early - and ideally bring on a US-based GTM leader who knows the playbook.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… It’s not just premature - it’s often fatal. Expanding into the US too early burns money and time. Hiring a US exec who doesn’t understand your customers or product - or worse, your culture and values - is a common mistake. And layering in complexity before you've nailed your European base can break a company.

What smarter investors say instead… Des Traynor at Intercom has written about the heavy cost of premature US expansion and the danger of stretching too soon. Investors like Philippe Botteri at Accel have built their careers backing European companies that go global gradually - without over hiring in the US too early. Eileen Burbidge at Passion Capital has repeatedly emphasised that founders should expand from a position of strength, not insecurity.

The takeaway: Expand only when ready - and only when you can do it from a position of strength.

4. “Focus on building a platform, not just a product.”

Heard from… Often repeated in pitch meetings and VC feedback. “What you’ve built is great - but the real opportunity is to be a platform.” It sounds visionary, and it looks good on a slide.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… It’s fantasy. Platforms don’t come from vision - they come from execution. Founders who start building for imagined future customers often lose the ones they have. Building a platform too early means building too much, too soon, for too many people. Most never recover.

What smarter investors say instead… Ben Horowitz at a16z has written that you’re not a platform until other developers are building on you - and that comes much later. Smart early-stage investors like Harry Stebbings and James Wise at Balderton have spoken about the importance of staying focused early - warning that platform ambition too soon can blur product clarity and dilute execution.

The takeaway: Product focus isn’t a limitation. It’s your first moat.

5. “Raise as much as you can, as early as you can.”

Heard from… Investors often pitch this as a benefit: “We’ll give you a bigger round than anyone else.” It’s pitched as ambition, as optionality, as confidence.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… Too much capital too early creates pressure to grow unnaturally fast, scale before product-market fit, and chase vanity metrics. It’s easy to hire. It’s harder to fire. Overfunding locks you into a burn structure that may not match your actual progress. And rasing big rounds when you don't have a big valuation to match means unnecessary dilution.

What smarter investors say instead… Paul Graham and Brad Feld have both promoted the idea of “just-in-time” fundraising - raise what you need to hit the next proofpoint, then raise again with leverage when investor interest is high. Fred Wilson has written extensively about the dangers of overcapitalisation and how too much money too early often leads to bad habits and weak discipline.

The takeaway: Smart capital isn’t always the biggest cheque. It’s the one that fits your stage and takes you (with some sensible contingency!) to the next one.

6. “We’re looking for a ‘category-defining’ company.”

Heard from… A staple in VC decks and interviews. It’s a flattering phrase - founders love to hear it. But it’s also a convenient way for VCs to say no to anything niche, unfamiliar, or weird.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… Not every great startup begins by trying to define a category. Most iconic companies were initially small, specific, even boring. Being “category-defining” is something that happens over time - not something that needs to be claimed in a pre-seed deck. Expecting it too early often means penalising originality.

What smarter investors say instead… Investors like Christoph Janz at Point Nine emphasise building “painkiller” products that solve concrete, meaningful problems for real users - not vague visions. The team at Connect Ventures even says that product founders have a distinct anatomy and a 'common DNA' that defines, discerns and differentiates them from other company builders.

The takeaway: Vision is good. But solving real problems now usually wins.

7. “The best products always win.”

Heard from… This one is popular with product-focused investors, especially those with engineering backgrounds. It’s said with pride: just build the best product and the market will find you.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… It sounds noble but it’s naive. Great product is necessary (as we see in item 6 above) - but not sufficient. Go-To-Market execution, pricing, positioning, and sales usually determine the winner. Many brilliant products fail because they don’t reach the right people, at the right time, in the right way.

What smarter investors say instead… Jason Lemkin is known for saying “the best Go-To-Market wins,” especially in SaaS. This is a common refrain from many the top investors. Andrew Chen at a16z: “Many startups die not because the product isn’t good, but because they fail to get distribution.” Elad Gil: “You can build a great product and still fail if you don’t figure out how to sell it.”

The takeaway: Building is only half the battle. Selling is the other half.

8. “Don’t worry about revenue - just grow.”

Heard from… It’s a hangover from the growth-at-all-costs era. Some VCs still talk this way, especially in AI or consumer categories. It sounds like permission to focus on usage before monetisation.

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… In 2025, that’s a luxury most startups can’t afford. Growth without revenue is a liability. Founders end up raising again before they've validated anything. Without revenue, you have no signal - just noise. You may never find those investors for the next round who want more solid proof.

What smarter investors say instead… David Sacks has argued that revenue is the most truthful measure of product-market fit - everything else is a proxy. Experienced VCs like Carlos Espinal at Seedcamp and Sarah Guo at Conviction regularly advise founders to bake in monetisation early, especially in less frothy capital markets.

The takeaway: Revenue brings signal, leverage, and control. Even modest traction from the earliest adopters shows proof.

9. “Moats are everything.”

Heard from… Popular with value-investor types or former bankers turned VCs. It’s often pitched as a requirement for investment: “What’s your moat?”

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… Early-stage companies don’t have moats. Nor should they. They’re too busy staying alive. Worrying about defensibility before you have a product or repeatable sales is a distraction. Moats come from momentum and building the right capabilities - not the other way around.

What smarter investors say instead… Kyle Harrison at Contrary has written about moats emerging from execution, speed, and focus - not slide decks. Rick Zullo at Equal Ventures has talked about real defensibility coming from capabilities - data loops, workflow lock-in, or user love. And Christoph Janz returns again here: if people love what you’re building and keep coming back, that’s your first moat.

The takeaway: Moats aren’t pre-built. They are the by-product of the capabilities you deliberately build from day one.

10. “We invest in missionaries, not mercenaries.”

Heard from… A classic on VC panels. It sounds noble - that passion beats profit motive. That founders should “live the problem.”

Why it’s misleading or dangerous… Some of the best founders are solving problems they stumbled into - not ones they spent a decade obsessing over. Mission matters. But so does insight, skill, and urgency. The “missionary” test is subjective and often a proxy for bias.

What smarter investors say instead… Keith Rabois has argued that execution beats evangelism, and that vision without follow-through is hallucination. Marc Andreessen has similarly said that the market you choose matters more than the missionary zeal you bring — execution and timing often beat passion alone.

The takeaway: What you’ve done - and how quickly you’ve done it - often matters more than why you started.


Final Thought

The most dangerous advice is the kind that sounds smart, gets repeated, and quietly shapes how you build - especially when it comes from people who write the cheques.

Great founders don’t reject advice outright. But they do interrogate it. They use what works for them and they put the rest aside - quickly.

Avoid the group think. Trust your instincts and push forward.

Let's talk.