It's not just that Indian VCs tend to have far less risk-appetite than US VCs, which is frustrating but one can be charitable (straitjacketed by LPs, European and other geo VCs are similar). It's the delta of quality between US vs Indian VCs that makes founders lose respect. (n = 80, 65% US) 1. I can't think of any US VC interaction that went past 4 weeks and didn't lead to a check, most tend to say no quick. I can think of multiple (5+) Indian VCs that dragged things on with multiple calls and field visits, asking the same questions, then passed for inane reasons. The worst just ghosted us (happened at least 3 times) 2. Related - For our preseed/seed, US VCs often passed for not having conviction in idea/team. Indian VCs often passed for "lack of commercial traction". This is pissing off for anyone building in deeptech/bio and short-circuits how ambitious founders can be 3. While many great US VCs were never founders themselves, as others have noted, there are enough former-founder VCs + higher level of respect for what it takes to be in the trenches, that it reshapes cultural norms to be way more founder-friendly 4. Related - While there are many great Indian VCs, the proportion with partners/analysts who drip with arrogance is much higher than it should be. Every founder can tell you awful stories about the fresh-off-IIT/IIM analyst who thought they knew more about their tech/business from an hour of chatGPT. What does it tell about the funds that their hiring process leads to having such ppl gatekeeping their dealflow? 5. In general, being a founder in the US is higher status than being VC, the reverse seems true in India