Last Money in is Powered by Sydecar

Sydecar empowers syndicate leads to manage their investments more effectively. Organize, manage, and engage your investor network effortlessly with Sydecar’s management and communication tools. Their platform also automates banking, compliance, contracts, tax, and reporting, freeing up syndicate leads to focus on securing deals and strengthening investor relations. Elevate your syndicate operations with Sydecar.

Deal Sheet Free Trial. Start your 7 day trial here!

Deal Sheet provides accredited investors: 

1. Access to some of the best startup opportunities across the VC syndicate ecosystem (est. 150-200 deals on Deal Sheet per year) and 

2. All Deal Sheet deals come at discounted carry – all opportunities on Deal Sheet are listed at 10% carry (versus 20% standard) with select opportunities (at our discretion) at 0% carry. 

Try the free trial today here!

A Portfolio Company Hit $100M+ in Revenues & Went Bankrupt

VC’s, myself included, are often drawn to companies with rapid growth and impressive revenue figures. The allure of a company scaling to $100M in annual revenue is undeniable—it signals product-market fit, successful go-to-market execution, substantial customer adoption and the potential for a lot more scale. But not all revenue is created equal, and scale alone can be dangerously misleading for investors (and founders). 

One of our portfolio companies (will remain confidential) embodied this lesson. Within years of launching, they had scaled to over $100M in annual revenue, attracting significant attention and follow-on capital at progressively higher valuations. Their growth curve, albeit not hyperbolic, was impressive and consistent, but unfortunately it turned out to be “poor quality,” - low margin, not recurring, cyclical and fueled partially by debt, which had large interest payments. Despite passing $100M in annual revenue threshold, they went under. 

The 2021-2022 market correction brought “quality of revenues” into sharp focus. Companies that had been darlings of the bull market suddenly found themselves scrutinized through a different lens. Take Bird, which went public via SPAC at a $2.3 billion valuation in 2021 based partially on its rapid revenue growth, only to be delisted less than two years later as the fundamentals of the business just didn’t work. Or Allbirds, whose sustainable footwear generated tremendous revenue growth but whose stock has declined over 95% from its IPO price as margins compressed and growth stalled. The market dramatically reassessed what a dollar of revenue was worth, and this reassessment wasn't uniform across companies. 

The Revenue Quality Framework

So how can investors and founders look beyond headline revenue numbers to assess the true health and value of a business?  Building on our previous analysis of revenue multiples in our article Why Revenue ≠ Revenue! How to See Past the Blanket Revenue Multiples Put on Companies, here are a few factors for evaluating revenue quality:

1. Revenue Durability

• Gross Retention: What percentage of customers (and their spending) remains after a year? High churn indicates a product that may not deliver sufficient and/or lasting value.

• Net Revenue Retention: Are existing customers expanding their usage over time? Many of the best businesses see net retention above 115-120%, creating a "negative churn" effect where the existing customer base grows without any new sales.

• Contract Structures: Are revenues secured through long-term contracts, or can customers leave at any time? Predictable, contracted, sticky revenue is more valuable than transactional revenue. 

2. Defensibility

• Switching Costs: How difficult is it for customers to move to a competitor? Higher switching costs create "stickiness" that protects future revenue.

• Network Effects: Does the product become more valuable as more users adopt it? Strong network effects create self-reinforcing advantages that are difficult for competitors to overcome.

• Intellectual Property: Does the company have unique technology, data assets, or other IP that competitors cannot easily replicate?

• Ecosystem Integration: How deeply is the product embedded in customers' workflows or systems? Products that become part of critical infrastructure are harder to displace.

3. Capital Efficiency

• Cash Burn Ratio: How much cash is the company burning relative to its growth rate? Efficient companies can generate significant growth with modest capital consumption.

• Path to Profitability: Is there a clear, credible path to positive cash flow? The best companies may have some sense of when they can reach profitability and generally understand the operating leverage in the business. 

• Capital Dependency: Could the business survive and grow without additional external funding? Companies that require continuous capital infusions to maintain their model are inherently vulnerable.

4. Acquisition Efficiency

• CAC Payback Period: How quickly does a customer generate enough gross profit to cover their acquisition cost? Healthy businesses typically recover CAC within 6-18 months or sooner.

• Organic vs. Paid Acquisition: What percentage of new customers come through organic channels versus paid marketing? Higher organic acquisition suggests stronger product-market fit and brand value.

• Acquisition Scalability: Do customer acquisition costs remain stable or increase as the company scales its marketing spend? Rapidly increasing CAC can indicate market saturation.

5. Unit Economics

• Contribution Margin: After accounting for all direct costs of serving a customer, what percentage of revenue remains? Negative contribution margins at scale are a serious red flag.

• Margin Trajectory: Are unit economics improving or deteriorating over time? Even if margins are initially low, they should demonstrate consistent improvement as the business scales.

• Fixed vs. Variable Costs: How much of the cost structure scales directly with revenue versus being fixed? Businesses with high fixed costs can achieve dramatic margin improvements at scale—but can also collapse quickly if revenue declines.

Today’s Example → The CoreWeave Concern: Equipment Reseller with Extreme Customer Concentration

A highly discussed example of this could be CoreWeave, a specialized cloud provider that has seen explosive revenue growth to almost $2 billion by focusing on GPU-intensive workloads, particularly for AI. Their growth narrative has attracted significant investment and attention, but a closer examination raises serious questions about revenue quality:

1. Dangerous Customer Concentration: Microsoft reportedly accounted for a staggering 62% of CoreWeave's revenues in 2024, with a second customer contributing another 15%. This means 77% of their revenue depends on just two customers—an extreme concentration risk that leaves them vulnerable to catastrophic revenue loss if either relationship changes. 

2. Supply Chain Dependency: CoreWeave's business model is heavily reliant on their relationship with NVIDIA, whose GPUs power their cloud services. This creates a potential point of failure in their business model and limits their ability to negotiate favorable terms or differentiate their hardware offerings.

3. Low-Margin Equipment Reselling with Huge Debt Payments: Beneath the AI-fueled growth narrative, questions persist about whether CoreWeave's fundamental business model amounts to low-margin equipment reselling rather than a truly differentiated cloud service with proprietary technology advantages. 

Like our failed portfolio company, CoreWeave's impressive revenue scale might mask fundamental weaknesses in revenue quality that may be exposed extremely quickly if a surplus of compute capacity is built out and the need for resellers goes away. 

To Underscore: The Future Belongs to Quality Revenue

The market's evolving perspective on revenue multiples reflects a deeper truth: in the long run, business fundamentals always matter. The companies that will survive and thrive in the years ahead aren't necessarily those that reach $100M in revenue fastest, but those that build high-quality, defensible, and profitable revenue streams.

For founders, this means focusing on building sustainable unit economics and genuine value propositions that work across market cycles. For investors, it means looking beyond the headline revenue numbers to assess the structural quality of a business's revenue—how it's acquired, how profitable it is, how likely it is to persist, and how well it's protected from competition.

Our failed portfolio company serves as a stark reminder that scale without underlying fundamentals, revenues can be a shiny mirage. The true measure of a business isn't how quickly it can grow, but whether that growth creates enduring value. As we evaluate the next generation of high-growth startups, we would do well to remember that lesson.

If you enjoyed this article feel free to view our prior articles on adjacent topics 

• Bridge Rounds; A VC’s Dream or Nightmare?

• The Challenges of Relying on Public Comparables for Valuing Your Startup

• Why Revenue ≠ Revenue! How to See Past the Blanket Revenue Multiples Put on Companies

Last Money in is Powered by Sydecar

Sydecar empowers syndicate leads to manage their investments more effectively. Organize, manage, and engage your investor network effortlessly with Sydecar’s management and communication tools. Their platform also automates banking, compliance, contracts, tax, and reporting, freeing up syndicate leads to focus on securing deals and strengthening investor relations. Elevate your syndicate operations with Sydecar.

If you enjoyed this post, please share on LinkedIn, X (fka Twitter), Meta and elsewhere. It goes a long way to support us!

Follow the Last Money In authors on LinkedIn

✍️ Written by Zachary and Alex