For a long time, I held this wrong assumption: that people who are active on Twitter self-select for good behavior. I used to think, no matter how much you thoughtpoast online, if you’re an idiot, people will call you out. They’ll laugh at your takes, realise you’re not that smart. If your ideas are not actually useful, you can’t provide any real insight, people will stop reaching out to you.



And by the same logic, I believed that VCs who are very visible on Twitter, writing threads about founder empathy and sharing frameworks on how to be a “good VC,” would also be on their best behavior when they actually meet founders.

But over the last year, I’ve learned something surprising. Some of the most active, most vocal VCs on social media are the worst people to pitch to. There’s no correlation between what they preach online and how they behave in real life. It is bizarre.



Yes, a lot of these are not personal experiences, but anecdotes from friends who have gone through their fund raising journey.

I still can’t wrap my head around how someone can constantly talk about being “founder-first” and then show up to a pitch meeting and act like a total jerk. They waste founders’ time, take their insights to shape their own thesis, and have zero intention of actually investing. Even worse, they pass the deck or thesis along to a founder in their own portfolio.

And the startup ecosystem is small. Everyone who’s done anything is just one intro away. Word gets around. What’s even more surprising is that the best VCs I’ve met personally, or I have heard good things about, aren’t even active on Twitter. They’re low key, self aware, humble.

Even when they say no, they say it in a way that respects the founder. They give thoughtful feedback. They don’t perform for Twitter. They actually help.

At the end of the day, most founders don’t mind hearing “no.” They are used to rejections.

But they do remember how you said it. They remember whether you made them feel stupid or seen. And in this market, where almost no one is raising unless they’re building the hot thesis of the month, 10 min diaper delivery, those little things matter.



Probably, founders, regardless of past experiences, will still raise from these VCs. The ecosystem is small, and there aren’t enough tier 1 funds. Founders will still prioritise high valuations and less dilution.

However, now that all Indian VCs are trying to go global and compete for the best deals in the US, I’m not sure how they’ll stand out. They might end up being the 50th option for a Stanford undergrad Math Olympiad gold medalist founder, whether desi or not.

Just something I’ve found incredibly strange and thought of sharing.