In a devastating blow to startup culture everywhere, venture capitalist Samantha Richards shocked the Silicon Valley ecosystem yesterday by asking a simple question that caused a 26-year-old tech startup founder to question his entire existence: “What will your company look like in 100 years?”
Witnesses report that Jake Novak, founder and CEO of PupChain AI (an artificial intelligence platform that uses blockchain to help dogs find their perfect walking routes), froze mid-pitch, his Allbirds seemingly cemented to the floor of the Sequoia Capital conference room. After thirty seconds of uncomfortable silence, during which his Apple Watch registered a heart-rate consistent with “extreme psychological distress,” Novak reportedly whispered, “I was… I was only planning until our Series C funding round.”
The incident marks the first time in Silicon Valley history that anyone has been asked to think beyond their four-year vesting schedule or potential acquisition by Microsoft or Salesforce.
“We’ve always encouraged founders to have a ‘vision,'” explains Richard Porter, partner at Andreessen Horowitz. “But we generally mean a vision that aligns with our 7-10 year fund lifecycle and involves a lucrative exit. This ‘100-year’ question is basically venture capital heresy. It’s like asking a Tinder date about their funeral arrangements.”
The Rise of “Temporal Myopia”
According to the Institute for Startup Delusions, 97% of founders can describe in precise detail their plans for the next funding round, but only 2% have any coherent thoughts about what their company might be doing after they cash out. This phenomenon, known as “Temporal Myopia,” has reached epidemic proportions in tech hubs around the world.
“We’ve observed that the average founder’s time horizon extends precisely to the day their shares fully vest, plus maybe a few weeks for a vacation in Bali,” explains Dr. Cassandra Futurist, who studies startup psychology at Stanford. “When forced to contemplate their company’s existence beyond that point, they experience what we call ‘existential vertigo’ – the sudden, nauseating realization that they’ve been pitching their business as ‘world-changing’ without actually believing it themselves.”
This disconnect has been exacerbated by the current fundraising environment. In 2025, investors are focusing more on profitability and sustainable business models rather than just growth at all costs1. Yet paradoxically, they still gravitate toward trendy sectors and quick exits.
“Our latest data shows that 81% of startup pitch decks include the words ‘revolutionary’ or ‘disruptive,’ while internal documents reveal their actual goal is to be acquired within 36 months,” notes Futurist. “It’s a fascinating cognitive dissonance that founders have perfected – simultaneously believing they’re changing the world forever and planning to hand the reins to Microsoft by 2028.”
The Question That Breaks Founders’ Brains
The “100-year question” has now been tested on seventeen different startups, with devastating results each time:
- The founder of GutBiomAI (AI-powered gut microbiome analysis) began sobbing when he realized his company would likely be obsolete with the invention of the “DigestiBuddy” implantable stomach computer expected by 2040.
- The CEO of Blinkr (15-second video dating app) admitted that humans might not even have corporeal forms in a century, making his “swipe right” innovation somewhat irrelevant to post-biological consciousness.
- The founding team of ClimateNinja (carbon offset marketplace) acknowledged that in 100 years, their office would likely be underwater, regardless of their platform’s success.
“This question is fundamentally unfair,” protests Tyler Momentum, founder of a startup that uses machine learning to optimize the placement of avocados on toast. “We’re building for the NOW, for the problems people have TODAY – like suboptimal avocado distribution. No one builds companies thinking about what the world will be like a century from now.”
Except, of course, for the companies that have actually survived for centuries. The oldest company in the world, Kongō Gumi in Japan, operated for over 1,400 years before being acquired in 20062. Toyota has maintained a corporate vision spanning decades, not quarters. Companies like 3M have sustained innovation through long-term thinking and planning3.
“The Japanese concept of ‘shinise’4 – businesses that have existed for centuries – is completely alien to Silicon Valley,” explains business historian Maria Longevity. “These companies plan in terms of generations, not exit opportunities. They’re not thinking about how to disrupt; they’re thinking about how to endure.”
The Response from VC Land
The venture capital community has reacted with horror to the spread of the “100-year question.” Emergency meetings have been called at top VC firms, and a task force has been assembled to develop countermeasures.
“This question undermines the entire model of modern venture capital,” explains Jeffrey Quarterview, managing partner at Lightspeed. “Our industry is built on convincing extremely smart people to spend their talents building something that will either fail spectacularly or succeed just enough to be purchased by a tech giant. If founders start thinking about creating genuinely enduring institutions, our whole ecosystem could collapse right under our dusty noses.”
In an internal memo leaked to TechOnion, one prominent VC firm instructed its partners to “immediately redirect any conversation about long-term sustainability back to TAM, GTM, or MRR – anything with a three-letter acronym that focuses the founder on the next 12 months.”
The memo continued: “If a founder persists in discussing their 100-year vision, remind them that the typical successful startup has a lifespan of a hamster on methamphetamines, and that’s by design. We’re not building cathedrals here; we’re building pop-up shops that hopefully Google or Facebook will overpay for.”
The Pivot Paradox
The “100-year question” has exposed another uncomfortable truth about startup culture: the celebrated practice of “pivoting” makes a mockery of any claims to long-term vision.
“We analyzed 500 startup pivots from the last decade and found that 91% were reactive responses to failing to gain traction with their original idea,” reports Dr. Futurist. “Yet these same founders will tell you with a straight face that they’re ‘mission-driven’ and ‘passionate about solving problem X.’ Until, of course, they pivot to problem Y when the money runs out.”
This phenomenon, dubbed the “Pivot Paradox,” raises fundamental questions about the sincerity of startup missions. If a founder is truly committed to solving online education, why do they so readily pivot to cryptocurrency trading when user growth stalls?
“I founded my company to revolutionize pet healthcare through AI,” admits Barry Chaseopportunity, founder of what was originally PetMed AI but is now CryptoKitty NFT Marketplace. “But after six months, we realized the unit economics weren’t working, so now we help people trade cartoon cats on the blockchain. The mission remains the same: helping… uh… pets… through… digital… something.”
When asked what his company might be doing in 100 years, Chaseopportunity stared blankly before asking if he could “phone a friend.”
The Sustainable Alternative
A small but growing number of founders are embracing the “100-year question” and building what they call “legacy companies” – businesses designed to outlive their founders.
“When we started, we asked ourselves what problems would still need solving a century from now,” explains Eliza Durance, founder of Terraform Agriculture, a company developing self-sustaining farming systems. “That led us away from chasing what’s trendy and toward fundamentals: how humans will feed themselves in a changing climate. It’s not sexy, but it’s enduring.”
This approach contradicts the standard Silicon Valley playbook. Instead of raising massive sums to blitzscale, these companies grow more organically. Instead of optimizing for a quick exit, they build governance structures that can outlast the founders. Instead of chasing the latest buzzwords, they focus on fundamental human needs that will persist through technological change.
“We’ve been approached by venture firms, but their timelines don’t align with ours,” says Durance. “They want hockey-stick growth and an exit within 7 years. We’re building something that should still be operating when our grandchildren are running it.”
This patient approach to company building has historical precedent. Many of the world’s oldest companies are family businesses that prioritized longevity over rapid growth. Toyoda Sakichi didn’t build Toyota to flip it to Ford; he built it as an enduring institution that could evolve over generations.
“Long-term thinking in business ensures steady growth through prudent planning and investment,” notes one sustainable business researcher. “Companies that adopt this mindset are better equipped to navigate the challenges of their industries and emerge as leaders in their respective fields.”
The VC Counter-Revolution
As the “100-year question” gains traction, venture capital firms are fighting back with their own narrative: that building to flip is actually good for innovation.
“The recycling of talent and capital is what makes Silicon Valley special,” argues Tim Cycle, partner at Innovation Partners. “Founders build something, sell it, then build something new. It’s the circle of startup life. If everyone built hundred-year companies, we’d have fewer shots on goal.”
To combat the long-term thinking movement, several prominent VCs have launched a PR campaign titled “Move Fast and Exit Faster: Why Building to Sell Is Actually Humanitarian.” The campaign’s website features testimonials from yacht salespeople, luxury real estate agents, and Tesla dealers about the economic benefits of founder liquidity events.
Meanwhile, a new crop of startups has emerged specifically to help founders craft convincing answers to the “100-year question” without actually changing their business models.
“Our AI-powered ‘LongTermVision™’ tool generates century-spanning corporate narratives that sound plausible but commit you to nothing,” explains Miranda Short, founder of PitchPerfect.ai. “For just $4,999, we’ll create a custom 100-year vision that will satisfy any VC’s sudden interest in longevity while you continue executing your 18-month flip strategy.”
The Unexpected Twist: It Was Always About Legacy
The deepest irony of this whole situation is that beneath the growth hacking, pivoting, and exit strategizing, most founders are actually driven by a desire to create something meaningful that outlasts them.
When researchers conducted anonymous surveys asking founders about their true motivations, the results were surprising. While 94% publicly cited “solving an important problem” or “disrupting an industry” as their primary goal, in anonymous responses, 78% admitted that what they really wanted was “to build something that matters” and “to leave a mark on the world.”
“There’s a profound existential conflict at the heart of modern startup culture,” explains Dr. Futurist. “Founders are driven by the very human desire to create meaning and legacy, but they’re operating in a system that incentivizes short-term thinking and quick exits.”
This disconnect may explain the growing mental health crisis among founders, with rates of anxiety and depression far exceeding those in the general population. Building something designed to be flipped rather than to last creates a form of cognitive dissonance that takes a psychological toll.
“When we ask the ‘100-year question,’ we’re not really asking about business models or market opportunities,” says Samantha Richards, the VC who started this whole controversy. “We’re asking founders to confront whether they’re building something they truly believe in – something worthy of existing for generations – or whether they’re just playing startup lottery.”
And that may be the most disruptive question of all.
DONATE NOW: Help TechOnion Build a Media Empire That Outlasts Your Startup’s Pivot to Blockchain! Unlike the VC-backed startups changing their business model faster than they change their Patagonia vests, TechOnion is committed to a 100-year vision of satirizing whatever techno-optimist nonsense emerges through 2125 and beyond. Your donation supports journalism with a time horizon longer than a founder’s vesting schedule. Be part of something that might actually be around when the climate apocalypse hits – we promise to keep the servers running even when Silicon Valley is underwater!
