Most VC portfolios are structured such that the expectation (at least at the time of investment) is that this company will be able to make up for ALL the inevitable losses I am going to take in the other companies I invest in. Well, not really that cynical, but in reality usually one or two companies in a fund are where all the profits come from, so you can understand why investors push each company to swing for the fences.

Key takeaway for entrepreneurs is just to know when a VC is right for your business and when it's not. The key factor here is how quickly you need to scale. For example most entrepreneurs don't have the goal of a nine figure exit for their business in the next several years, but some do.

Not all VCs invest this way. Here's a good read by Greycroft Partner Ian Sigalow that walks through the economics of how they invest and why: http://www.sigalow.com/2012/01/a-new-take-on-series-a

I understand that for some businesses accepting VC funding means more success than you could have ultimately achieved on your own, or even success where you would have otherwise failed. But to be overly snarky and simplistic, if I wanted to put someone else's benefit ahead of my own I wouldn't have started a [for profit] business.

I say that because most businesses which follow this strategy won't just tank, they'll tank really hard [Edit: that's an assumption, of course, but is this incorrect?]. I wonder if anyone is tracking the impact of this?

Is there anything that says that VCs make less by advocating strategies which promote the success of their entire portfolio? Are there VCs out there that do this?