They're suggesting dollars invested in UK startups are more likely to create a unicorn than those same dollars put into us startups, hence higher performance.

There's more than an element of truth to this, we do not always dream big enough or take enough risk. We are efficient and frugal sometimes to a fault.

However it's not the whole story, there are actually people who want to swing for the fences, but who cannot and ultimately end up either scaling back, failing, or moving to the US. There isn't good access to early-stage funding here, and there is no real ecosystem either.

We have absolutely obscene amounts of untapped potential, it's infuriating.

Two of my best success stories are along those lines, and I thought might hit favorable "10x" and "startup agility and resourcefulness" notes.

But in the US, I think the stories often land with the unspoken reaction of, "strange flex, bro: if that company were better, it would have raised more, and had rapid growth of headcount, on the way to a successful exit."

This might be a good application of LLM to large text corpus: label instances of US startup people of the past 2 decades (i.e., ZIRP, followed by crypto and AI gold rushes) speaking of how much they raised, and also label instances of them speaking of how scrappy they were with limited resources. Compare.

Same data, different perspective and probably more the angle they were going for. Obviously ROI is ultimately what matters but risk tolerance is a thing.

That just seems like spin on what is essentially burning cash. I don't think it's a morally superior posture to invest in things that fail. I assure you VC's are turning down plenty of things because they don't seem like unicorns.

I mean Sequoia invested with SBF while he was playing league of legends in his pitch meeting. We're not dealing with geniuses here.