First post here, and a question I’ve been circling for a while.
Changing the problem statement seems less like failure and more like the normal metabolism of an early-stage company — most of the ones I admire don’t solve the thing they originally pitched. Which makes me curious about the other side of the table.
If everyone knows the idea being pitched probably isn’t the one that eventually works, what is the investor actually buying — the founder, the market, or a particular insight that has to survive the pivots?
- Where’s the line between iteration and a different company you didn’t agree to fund? Is it about direction of travel, or about whether the original insight still holds?
- If a founder says upfront that the idea will probably evolve, does that read as honest or as low conviction?
Curious what both founders and investors here have actually seen.