I've often noticed how a founder even with millions of dollars in cash flow may not have started with any investment of other people's money, but also may not be in a situation where they can offer any of their own money as an investment in someone else's venture either.
So there's not much pure capitalism involved, financial focus is on well overcoming the cost of doing business by making money pleasing customers.
Lots of successful entrepreneurs are like this.
OTOH, a suitable venture capitalist is expected to have much greater resources first of all, intended to be put to work symbiotically where the investment leverages the founder's corporation, and the corporation thereby makes better returns for the capitalist than could generally be obtained in public markets.
The more pure the capitalist component, the more purely the financial focus can be simply on returns of some form.
Lots of succesful capitalists are like this.
And both can get together in a way which everybody wins.
Probably ideal if the inherent imbalance of strength/resources can be compensated for to make sure of it.
If the capitalist is so overwhelmingly strong and therefore more powerful, the founder might as well not consider themself a capitalist at all by comparison.
Both seem to prosper well when the capitalist not only wants healthy returns but truly also wants the founder to grow into a stronger capitalist themself, and makes it real.
That way both can focus on the retuns from a similar perspective.
Without that there's more chance of returns being made through cannibalistic activity if one beast is much bigger and gets hungry, and the way smaller species has no effective defense.
