Most people (as in 99.9%) don't give a shit about venture capital and don't follow it at all. I would guess that most people (as in >50%) couldn't even give you a half-way accurate definition of it.
If you're buying enterprise software you're more likely to know that VC exists but you're not any more likely to care about it. None of the people writing 5-7 figure enterprise software checks are tracking which VCs are at which firm when, and who invested in what, and what company had a negative client impact when, and all that. And even if you were tracking it what are the odds that you'll need the same software 5 or 10 years later when it might be relevant to the decision?
Things evolve based on evolutionary pressures only and the VC world is too disconnected from its negative impacts to feel any pressure from them.
Put another way, credibility (from the standpoint of the customer) does not positively or negatively impact a VC in any way.
The highly credible VCs should be able to positively influence the negotiated pricing, at least by association.
But even if everyone was clueless, the seller will still likely present such information to the buyer to justify not providing discounts.
I think the biggest issue would be the most "successful" VCs aka the ones that make the most money, have the most money to invest in other companies.
If they can make the most return on their investment by fucking over customers than they would have a greater impact.
I suppose if we had the ability to "pierce the VC veil" we could see who the main VCs are and choose weather or not to use a product based on their track record.
VCs care about their returns. They get returns by selling the company to the next entity in line — a strategic acquirer, an acqui-hire acquirer, or through an IPO. To maximize their returns, they insist on maximizing growth, specifically user base growth. And when they sell, the acquiring entity usually ruins the experience for users, shuts down the business, or both.