Should I take on investment?

The term sheet is on the table and the terms look reasonable. But "reasonable" is not the same as "right." Before you sign, the question worth sitting with is not whether you can survive this investment — it's whether this investment serves the specific business you're actually building, not the business you imagined when you first started talking to investors.

What makes this decision different

Investment decisions are unusual in that the process of raising capital is itself a persuasion event. You spend weeks or months pitching the best version of your company to people whose job is to evaluate it. By the time you have a term sheet, you've rehearsed the optimistic narrative so thoroughly that it's become the only narrative. The investor also wants to believe it. The conditions for clear thinking about the downside have been systematically dismantled.

There's also the validation problem. Being funded feels like external confirmation that the business is real and the idea is sound. It is not. It means one or more investors think there's a return available at this valuation. That is a different judgment, made from a different incentive structure, about a different question. Conflating "someone thinks this is investable" with "this is a good idea" is a very common and very expensive error.

What the capital actually changes — and what it doesn't

Capital removes one constraint: resources. It does not remove the other constraints: clarity about the market, quality of execution, fit between what you're building and what customers want. In a business where the real problem is strategic — where the direction is unclear, the product isn't right, or the market is smaller than you believed — capital accelerates failure rather than enabling success. More money into the wrong thing produces a larger wrong thing at higher speed.

What capital genuinely does: it buys time and capacity for bets you've already validated. If you know what works and need to replicate it at scale, capital is the right tool. If you're still figuring out what works, capital mostly adds pressure to figure it out before the runway ends.

The questions that actually matter

1. What specifically does this capital unlock that you cannot achieve on current trajectory? Not a category ("growth," "hiring," "marketing") but a specific milestone. "We will hire two engineers and a sales lead, reach £X in ARR within 18 months, and be in position to raise Series A at favorable terms" is a thesis. "We'll grow faster" is not. The discipline of specificity is its own test: if you can't name it precisely, you haven't done the work.

2. Have you fully named what you're trading? Dilution compounds. At Series A you might give up 20%. At Series B, another 15–20%. By the time you're at Series C, the founder who started with 100% may own 30–40%, depending on how you've structured things. That's not a tragedy — if the company is worth significantly more, the math still works. But it's worth running to its conclusion before you start, not discovering it round by round.

3. Is this the right investor for the company you're building? Not "is this an investor with a strong network and a good reputation?" but specifically: does their thesis about your market match yours? Have they previously backed companies at your stage and been a constructive board member when things got hard? Do they define a good outcome the same way you do? The relationship will be tested. Know what you're signing up for.

4. What happens if the funding doesn't produce the milestone you projected? This is the inversion. In 18 months, the ARR target is missed. The team you hired is good but the product isn't landing. The next round is not obvious. What are your options from that position? Who else is on the cap table, and what will they expect? The downside scenario deserves as much attention as the upside scenario, and it is almost never examined in the room where the term sheet is being discussed.

What a council surfaces that you won't

The investment decision is one where internal reasoning is systematically biased toward yes. The narrative momentum, the investor enthusiasm, the sunk cost of the months you've spent in the process — all of it tilts toward closing. A council of perspectives that didn't attend the pitch meeting is your best defense against a decision made by a version of you that's been in a persuasion environment for four months.

The contrarian perspective asks whether the business model actually requires external capital or whether growth can be funded from revenue. The capital allocator perspective asks what this equity costs on a long enough horizon. The probability perspective asks you to assign numbers to your projections and then asks what would change those numbers.

What this decision is actually about

Taking investment is not a milestone. It is the beginning of a specific set of obligations. A funded company has a duty to its investors — not in a malevolent sense, but in the structural sense that the capital comes with expectations, and those expectations shape decisions. Before you raise, the question worth being honest about is whether you want to be the kind of company that operates under those expectations, on the timeline that funding implies. Some businesses are better bootstrapped. Some markets and models genuinely require external capital to compete. Knowing which one you're building is the prerequisite to a good funding decision.

Pressure-test it with your council → Start a Decision Review