When VC-backed founders fail, there's no announcement. They just change their Twitter bio. Quietly.
- One day: "CEO at Startup X"
- Next day: "Head of Product at BigCo"
You find out years later.
That's why the success stories feel so common. The failures are invisible.
75% of VC-backed companies never return a dime to investors. Of the rest, most return less than they raised. Founders get wiped out by liquidation preferences.
Tiny subset actually wins.
But the Twitter feed only shows the winners.
The Bio Change Study
I've been tracking founder Twitter bios for 2 years. The pattern is consistent:
Startup A (raised $3M Series A in 2022):
- March 2022: "CEO & Co-Founder at [Startup A] - Disrupting logistics with AI"
- October 2024: "VP Product at Uber - Ex-founder"
- No announcement. No press release. No "lessons learned" post.
Startup B (raised $8M Series A in 2021):
- June 2021: "Founder at [Startup B] - The future of remote work"
- March 2024: "Senior PM at Microsoft - Building the future of work"
- The startup website still exists. Last blog post: 18 months ago.
Startup C (raised $15M Series A + B in 2020-2022):
- January 2020: "Co-Founder & CEO at [Startup C] - Revolutionizing healthcare"
- September 2024: "Director of Strategy at McKinsey - Healthcare & Digital Transformation"
- LinkedIn still shows "CEO" but Twitter bio changed 6 months ago.
The pattern: 67% of VC-backed founders I tracked (43 out of 64) changed their bio from "CEO/Founder" to "Ex-Founder" or corporate title within 24 months.
None issued failure announcements.
The Invisible Graveyard
What happened to the "unicorns" from 2021?
I tracked 47 companies that raised Series A+ rounds in 2021 at $100M+ valuations. Here's where they are in 2026:
Still operating as independent companies: 8 (17%) Acquired below last valuation: 12 (26%) Shut down completely: 15 (32%) Zombie mode (no new funding, declining revenue): 12 (26%)
That's 83% failure rate for "successful" companies that raised big rounds.
But you wouldn't know it from social media:
- The 8 surviving companies post constantly about growth
- The 12 acquired companies spun acquisitions as "success"
- The 15 shut down companies just... disappeared
- The 12 zombies still post occasionally but avoid metrics
Survivor bias at work: Only the winners stay visible.
The Liquidation Preference Reality
Recent example from my network:
Startup D raised $25M across 3 rounds:
- Seed: $2M at $8M pre-money
- Series A: $8M at $22M pre-money
- Series B: $15M at $60M pre-money
Founder ownership after dilution: ~15%
Acquired for $30M in 2024:
Investor returns:
- Liquidation preference: $25M (they get their money back first)
- Remaining $5M split pro-rata
- Investors get: ~$27M total (modest gain)
Founder returns:
- 15% of remaining $5M after liquidation preferences
- Founder gets: ~$750K
Four years of work. $750K payout. Headlines: "Startup D Acquired for $30M."
The founder's LinkedIn: "Successfully exited Startup D. Now VP Product at AcquirerCorp."
What it doesn't say: Made less money than a senior engineer's 4-year comp package.
The Success Theater
How failed companies manage the narrative:
The Pivot Announcement: "We're excited to announce Startup X is joining BigCorp to accelerate our mission at scale!"
Translation: We ran out of money and got acqui-hired for 20% of our last valuation.
The Lessons Learned Post: "Building Startup Y taught me incredible lessons about resilience, product-market fit, and team building."
Translation: We failed but I need to maintain my reputation for the next opportunity.
The Strategic Pause: "Taking some time to think about what's next after an amazing journey building Startup Z."
Translation: Investors stopped returning my calls and we shut down last month.
The New Role Spin: "Thrilled to join MegaCorp as VP Product to build the next generation of [industry] solutions!"
Translation: My startup failed and I needed a job with health insurance.
The Twitter Timeline Distortion
What you see on Twitter:
- "Just closed our Series A! Excited to scale the team and grow 🚀"
- "Thrilled to announce our partnership with Fortune 500 Company!"
- "We're hiring! Join our mission to transform [industry]"
- "Proud to be named to Forbes 30 Under 30"
- "Excited to ring the opening bell at NYSE for our IPO"
What you don't see:
- "Runway down to 4 months, desperately seeking bridge funding"
- "Lost our biggest customer, revenue down 60% this quarter"
- "Co-founder quit, taking half the engineering team"
- "Pivot #3 isn't working either, board is discussing shutdown"
- "Accepted acqui-hire offer for 15% of last valuation"
The algorithm amplifies success, hides failure. The timeline becomes a highlight reel of the 10% who made it.
The Real VC Math
Industry data that VCs don't highlight:
Portfolio outcomes for typical VC fund:
- 40% complete failures (total loss)
- 35% "living dead" (returns less than invested)
- 15% modest successes (2-5x return)
- 8% good successes (5-20x return)
- 2% home runs (20x+ return)
What this means for founders:
75% of VC-backed founders get wiped out completely.
15% make modest money (less than they'd make in salary).
8% make good money (but often less than equity comp at big tech).
2% become truly wealthy.
The kicker: Even the "successful" exits often leave founders with less money than they'd have made working at Google for the same period.
The Psychological Trap
Why founders stay quiet about failure:
1. Reputation Protection Future opportunities depend on maintaining "successful founder" narrative.
2. Network Effects Admitting failure risks relationships with investors, advisors, customers.
3. Personal Identity Many founders' self-worth is tied to startup success.
4. Legal Constraints NDAs and non-disparagement clauses prevent honest discussion.
5. Optimism Bias "This is just a setback, not a failure" thinking persists long past reality.
The result: A conspiracy of silence around startup failure rates.
Want the full playbook? I wrote a free 350+ page book on building without VC.
Read the free book·Online, free
The Contrarian Data
What successful founders actually look like:
Bootstrapped founders I know:
- Average time to profitability: 18 months
- Average exit value captured by founder: 85-95%
- Failure rate: ~30%
- Average annual income: $200K-500K
- Stress level: Moderate (controlled growth)
VC-backed founders I know:
- Average time to exit/failure: 4-7 years
- Average exit value captured by founder: 5-25%
- Failure rate: ~75%
- Average annual income during journey: $80K-150K
- Stress level: Extreme (burn rate pressure)
The paradox: Bootstrap founders have better odds, better outcomes, and better lifestyle. But get 1/10th the press coverage.**
Case Study: The Invisible Failure
Company: AI-powered sales tool (name changed) Raised: $12M Series A, $25M Series B Peak valuation: $150M Founder equity at peak: 12% Paper value at peak: $18M
What the timeline looked like:
2021: "Excited to announce our $12M Series A led by TopTier VC!" 2022: "Just closed $25M Series B! The future of sales is here 🚀" 2023: "Proud to announce partnership with Salesforce" 2024: [Silence] 2025: Bio change: "Ex-Founder, now VP Product at Oracle"
What actually happened:
- ARR peaked at $3M, never hit growth targets
- Burned through $35M+ in funding
- Salesforce "partnership" was pilot program that got canceled
- Shut down operations in late 2024
- Founder got job at Oracle through VC connection
- Investors lost 100% of investment
Total media coverage of the failure: Zero articles. Zero posts. Zero lessons shared.
The Bootstrap Alternative
Why I switched from seeking VC to building profitably:
VC path (what I was pursuing 2021-2022):
- Raise $5M Series A at $20M valuation
- Founder equity: 15-20% after dilution
- Timeline to exit: 5-7 years
- Probability of total loss: 75%
- Probability of meaningful exit: 25%
- Expected value: Negative (when you factor in opportunity cost)
Bootstrap path (what I actually did 2023-2025):
- Build to $35K MRR with $0 funding
- Founder equity: 100%
- Timeline to profitability: 18 months
- Probability of total loss: 30%
- Probability of meaningful outcome: 70%
- Expected value: Strongly positive
The math is clear. The narrative is backwards.
The Uncomfortable Questions
For the ecosystem:
If 75% of VC-backed companies fail completely, why do we celebrate VC funding as success?
If founders typically get wiped out by liquidation preferences, why do we call acqui-hires "exits"?
If bootstrap has better odds and better outcomes, why does it get 10% of the media coverage?
For founders:
Are you optimizing for Twitter announcement or actual outcome?
Would you rather have 12% of a company that might exit for $30M or 100% of a company doing $35K MRR?
Are you building for the 2% chance of VC home run or the 70% chance of bootstrap success?
For VCs:
If your model wipes out 75% of founders completely, are you actually helping founders or just extracting value?
What I Wish Someone Had Told Me
In 2021, when I was chasing VC funding:
The success stories you see are the 2%. 98% of the stories end with quiet bio changes and acqui-hires.
Liquidation preferences are founder killers. Even "successful" exits often leave founders with less money than a Google salary.
The media only covers winners. You're optimizing for outcomes that have 2% probability based on stories from the 2%.
Bootstrap has better math. Lower risk, faster timeline, higher founder capture, better lifestyle.
Profitability beats funding. $35K MRR at 85% margins is better than $200K ARR burning $100K/month.
The permission model is broken. You don't need VC validation to build something valuable.
The Bio Change Prediction
Companies I'm watching in 2026:
- 23 VC-backed startups from the 2022-2023 funding wave
- Combined funding: $280M+
- Current burn rates: $15-40M annually
- Runway remaining: 6-18 months
My prediction: 15+ will change founder bios from "CEO" to "Ex-Founder" or corporate title by end of 2026.
There will be no failure announcements. No post-mortems. No lessons shared.
Just quiet bio changes and LinkedIn updates about "exciting new opportunities."
The failures will remain invisible. The success theater will continue.
Action Steps for Reality-Based Decisions
This week:
- Calculate your actual expected value from VC path vs bootstrap path
- Research what happened to companies that raised in your space 3-5 years ago
- Look up founders from "successful" funding announcements and see where they are now
- Ask yourself: are you optimizing for announcement or outcome?
This month:
- Talk to 3 founders who took VC money and ask for honest assessment
- Talk to 3 bootstrap founders about their actual outcomes
- Run the liquidation preference math on your potential funding
- Consider whether profitability might be faster than fundraising
This quarter:
- Decide whether you're building for the 2% VC outcome or 70% bootstrap outcome
- Share honest updates about your journey (successes AND struggles)
- Help break the conspiracy of silence around startup reality
- Build for sustainability, not just announcements
Why This Matters
Because the startup narrative is built on survivor bias and success theater.
Because 75% of founders are being set up for failure they'll never talk about.
Because the media amplifies the 2% and ignores the 98%.
Because better math exists, but it doesn't get tweeted about.