Travis Kalanick kicks off another round of VC bashing: ‘1% are helpful’
Uber founder Travis Kalanick has renewed his criticism of venture capitalists, telling David Senra's podcast that only around 1% of VCs are genuinely "helpful" to founders and just 10% clear the low bar of "do no harm." His comments come as he raises fresh mega-funding for his robotics company, Atoms, highlighting the tension between founders' reliance on VC money and his generally dim view of investors' actual contribution once cheques are signed.
Kalanick, who raised roughly $15 billion in VC funding during his Uber tenure before being ousted in a 2017 boardroom battle involving Benchmark's Bill Gurley, said he still advises founders against raising from Benchmark, despite the firm recently closing $2 billion across two new funds. He likened founders to a "chess master" running the company day-to-day, with VCs as occasional "chess enthusiasts" checking in. Atoms has just secured $1.7 billion led by Andreessen Horowitz, with Ben Horowitz joining its board. Kalanick also urged founders to avoid a "victim mentality" about difficult investor relationships, reflecting that his own combative management style at Uber, while not rule-breaking, "ran too close to the line."
- Kalanick says only 1% of VCs are truly helpful to founders
- Still bitter over 2017 Uber ouster tied to Benchmark's Bill Gurley
- His robotics firm Atoms just raised $1.7bn led by a16z
New here? Start with this
Venture capitalists invest in young companies in exchange for a stake in them, often providing money before a business can fund its own growth. They may also offer advice or contacts, and can have influence through board seats. Founders depend on this funding, but investors’ involvement and value can vary.
Travis Kalanick co-founded Uber and led it through years of rapid growth, backed by large amounts of venture capital. He left the company in 2017 after a dispute with its board, which included investor Bill Gurley of Benchmark. Kalanick now leads Atoms, a robotics company that has raised major funding from Andreessen Horowitz, whose co-founder Ben Horowitz has joined its board.
His views raise a broader question about what founders should expect from investors after a funding deal is done, and how they should handle disagreements with them. The issue matters because investors can provide resources and oversight while founders remain responsible for running their companies.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Venture capitalists provide essential capital and strategic expertise that have catalysed remarkable innovation and economic value creation across industries. Beyond funding, many investors offer invaluable network access, operational guidance, and board-level expertise that help founders navigate complex scaling challenges. The success of world-changing companies built with VC support demonstrates the model's effectiveness when genuine alignment exists between investors and founders. Moreover, VCs bear substantial financial risk themselves, succeeding only when their portfolio companies flourish, which fundamentally aligns their interests with founders' long-term success.
The case against
Many venture capitalists function primarily as capital providers who contribute little beyond their cheques, yet retain disproportionate control through board seats and contractual leverage. Once funding is deployed, numerous VCs offer minimal substantive guidance whilst maintaining the power to influence strategy and extract returns; founders often cannot openly criticise unhelpful investors without jeopardising future funding. The industry's economic structure rewards rapid growth and exits over sustainable business-building, incentivising practices that may conflict with founder interests and long-term value creation. This power asymmetry prevents honest discourse about VC quality and allows underperforming investors to remain largely insulated from accountability for poor guidance.