> Only very myopic VCs would think this way globally.
Might this be a (converse version of a) No True Scotsman fallacy?
Elsewhere in the thread, a comment [1] referenced an article [2] that details the return imperatives that VCs face. In particular, it details how small returns "don't move the needle".
OTOH, the article asserts that only 5% of VCs (misleading, if a percentage of number of firms instead of AUM) succeed in meeting this imperative, so I wonder how the other 95% still attract enough LP money.
>> In particular, it details how small returns "don't move the needle".
You never want small returns. But when you can choose a small return over basically a near-zero chance of losing all your money, it isn't that difficult of a choice - or it shouldn't be.
The point is that, to a VC, a small return is indistinguishable from losing all the (not "your", since they rarely have much, if any of their own money in it) money.
Given their economics, VCs have a very strong incentive (or an imperative, according to that article) for "forcing everyone to 10X+" (and I would argue it's more like 20x+), no matter how small the likelihood of that outcome. Without at least one outsized exit, they're a failure.
Put another way, their LPs aren't paying them to, in any way, play it safe. Near-zero chance isn't the same as zero.
So, yes, the choice for a typical VC isn't difficult. It's just the opposite of what you're proposing.
You never want small returns. But when you can choose a small return over basically a near-zero chance of losing all your money, it isn't that difficult of a choice - or it shouldn't be.