Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber and now CEO of the robotics company Atoms, is renewing his critique of venture capitalists, claiming that only 1% are genuinely helpful to founders. In a podcast episode with David Senra that aired over the weekend, Kalanick said that while a “super high bar” for a VC is to “do no harm,” his experience suggests just 10% of investors meet that standard, and a far smaller share—roughly 1%—actually add value. The comments arrive as Atoms recently closed a $1.7 billion funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, with Ben Horowitz joining the company’s board.
Kalanick’s complicated history with VCs
Kalanick’s relationship with venture capital has been defined by both triumph and conflict. During his tenure at Uber, he raised an unusual $15 billion in venture funding, making him a darling of the investor community. But in 2017, a boardroom battle with Bill Gurley of Benchmark, a key Uber investor, led to his ouster as CEO. On the podcast, Kalanick made clear he still harbors resentment toward Benchmark, even telling founders not to raise money from the firm. The animosity hasn’t damaged Benchmark’s standing; it raised another $2 billion across two new funds in June.
Also read: Sachin Bansal’s Navi lands $100M from Prosus in first outside funding round
Kalanick’s skepticism extends beyond a single bad experience. He told Senra that VCs are often like “chess enthusiasts” who drop in occasionally to check on a game, while the founder is the “chess master” living with the board every day. “It’s hard for them to participate because they just aren’t in that deep,” he said. He also acknowledged that investors, who are “glamorized” and have power, often struggle when founders don’t follow their advice.
Advice for founders: pitch like it’s an auction
Despite his criticism, Kalanick isn’t telling founders to avoid VC money. Instead, he advises them to craft a pitch so compelling that it triggers a bidding war among firms. One practical tip he shared for today’s fast-moving fundraising environment is to present a modestly detailed plan—too little detail won’t attract interest, but too much can come across as naive, especially in the rapidly evolving AI sector where long-term predictions are difficult.
Also read: American Airlines Unveils Major Cabin Overhaul: 4K Screens, Starlink Wi-Fi, and More Premium Seats
Kalanick also offered a more personal piece of advice: avoid a “victim mentality.” Reflecting on his own board battle, he said founders should ask, “What was my part in that dynamic?” He admitted that his management style at Uber, which he described as running “too close to the line,” was a contributing factor. “I was running a $70 billion company the way somebody who thought he was going to starve next week would run it,” he said, attributing his intensity to the grueling early years of his previous startup, Red Swoosh.
Other founders echo the sentiment
Kalanick isn’t alone in revisiting old grievances. Serial entrepreneur Mark Pincus, founder of Zynga, used the podcast as a springboard to air his own history with Accel, which led an investment in his company Support.com during the dot-com era. Pincus claimed on social media that Accel waged a “jihad” to replace him as CEO over his age and inexperience. Other founders piled on with their own accounts, naming additional firms they say pushed out company leaders.
Andreessen Horowitz, which is leading the round in Kalanick’s new company, has been quick to amplify the podcast, posting a series of tweets pointing followers back to the episode. The firm’s enthusiasm may not be entirely disinterested—Gurley and a16z cofounder Marc Andreessen have a history of public friction, with Andreessen once calling Gurley “my Newman” in a 2015 New Yorker profile. Gurley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
For founders handling the current fundraising climate, Kalanick’s comments offer a reminder that while VC relationships can be fraught, the onus is often on the founder to maintain perspective. As he put it, the key is to stay accountable and avoid letting past conflicts define future decisions.
