Almost all of them. The core reason for this is the arrogant assumption that "startups" are some kind of special, unique way of starting a business that must be followed in some kind of formulaic way, including the desire from the gitgo to be big. The VC community's view of what will make for a successful startup is the very thing that blinds them. Scott Case expresses this arrogance, "These startups are special and they have a different mindset [than small businesses]", and, "If you sit in a room of 200 startups, and you ask which of them are
small businesses, no one will raise their hand," he said. "What they'll
tell you is that they are giant businesses that just haven't scaled yet." Total BS. Here's the link - wapo.st/2dN5gG7
The ones sitting with Case who would answer that way are the ones who have drunk the VC Kool Aid - that central to being a startup is that you have to want to be a giant from the start.
Most SUCCESSFUL startups have no motivation to be big when they start; they only have the a) desire to do something better, b) meet a need others aren't, or c) follow their passion. Most huge businesses started out being small businesses solving a problem or following a passion, not "big businesses in the making".
One of my favorite examples is McDonalds. It was a hot dog stand for a decade and a half that evolved into two hamburger joints for many more years. The McDonald brothers had zero interest in being big - ever. No VC would have thrown money at this "small business" that now dominates the fast food industry. Soooo many more examples like this.
There are 600,000++ businesses that start every year. 6/100ths of one percent of them 00.06%, will ever in their life cycle have more than 500 employees. The odds against a VC choosing the potential winners is exponentially bad. If you look at the graduates of almost all incubators you see this in action. Techstars vets 15,000+/- businesses for every cycle, and only take 15 or so. Yet having sifted through 15,000 of the most motivated startups, the number of companies they have backed that have made it to 500 staff is a tiny fraction of their graduates. They trumpet their "success", but it's like Harvard taking credit for turning out successful people. When you reject 99.9%, and only a tiny percentage still become big, it's not exactly a model of booming success.
83% of the fastest growing companies in America do it without VC money. And likely another 16% could have done it as well, but took the money. VCs are historically epically terrible at picking winners.