Building Your Company
Your Way

One of the common dilemmas founders wrestle with when it comes to spending and growth is this: should we go all out, or should we build more gradually? Should we optimize for time to results or optimize for return on capital invested. Basically, should you try swinging for the fences from day one, or should you play it more conservatively and let things grow at a steadier pace?

There’s no easy answer. And honestly, anyone who tells you there is, essentially misleads you. It’s a very personal thing.

‍

Let’s break it down a little.

‍

‍The Aggressive Approach: "Go Big or Go Home"

When you’re building aggressively, you’re moving fast — hiring rapidly, spending heavily, pushing into the market with everything you’ve got. It’s the “go big or go home” philosophy. The goal is to blitz-scale: grab market share, prove product-market fit quickly, raise bigger rounds, and dominate your category before anyone else gets a chance.

‍

And let’s be real — this approach has built a lot of unicorns. It’s become almost the default mode for high-growth startups, especially in markets where being first (and biggest) is critical. Judging by the media and headlines, that’s the only way to build something big.

But it’s not without its downsides. When you go aggressive, you also raise the stakes. Every mistake costs more. Pivots are harder, because when you’ve already spent $10 million moving in one direction, hired a bunch of people, changing course with a big ship isn’t a simple thing. The pressure is immense, and not everyone is built to handle that kind of ride.

‍

And you have to wonder — has this approach become the standard because it’s truly the best way to build companies? Or because it aligns with how venture capital works? Let’s not forget, VCs need to deploy large amounts of capital and generate outsized returns. It’s very much in their interest for you to go fast and optimize for time. They are built and designed to play the aggressive strategy. If you end up burning cash and raising more money, they in turn can increase their holding and own a bigger portion of the company. They’re hedged.

‍

The Conservative Approach: "Slow and Steady Wins the Race"

On the flip side, the conservative approach is all about control. You build gradually, spend only where necessary, make smaller, more calculated bets. You conserve cash, extend your runway, and give yourself time to experiment, learn, and iterate.

This way of building gives you more room to make mistakes and adjust course. It also gives founders a greater sense of control over their destiny — you’re not constantly running against the clock, trying to make the next fundraise happen before you hit zero.

But there are trade-offs here, too. Conservative companies often struggle to generate the same kind of buzz that hyper-growth startups do. They can find it harder to attract top-tier talent, high-profile investors, and media attention. In addition, there’s also a risk of keeping the door open for a competitor to come in from the left field and own the market.

In a world obsessed with speed and scale, building quietly and patiently can feel like swimming against the current.

‍

So Which Approach Is Right?

Here’s the thing: there’s no single right answer.

‍

To me, it’s less about choosing the "right" strategy and more about choosing the strategy that fits you — and executing it to perfection.

I love a good sports analogy. So here’s one: What wins championships — offense or defense? The answer, of course, is both. It’s about matching the system to the players and the coach. You need the right team executing the right strategy.

The same goes for startups. If you’re a founding team that thrives on speed, chaos, and high-stakes plays, then go aggressive — and be the best in the world at it. But if you’re more methodical, thoughtful, and deliberate by nature, don’t force yourself into a blitz-scaling model because that’s what’s trendy. Build patiently — and execute that model brilliantly.

Trying to play a game that doesn’t fit your DNA will only lead to stress, poor decision-making, and ultimately worse outcomes. The key is to choose the one that you fully believe in and that leaves you with less doubt.

‍

Notice, I didn’t say "no doubt" — because doubt is always going to be part of the entrepreneurial journey. But the right path is the one where you feel, deep down, that you've made the best call with the information you have.

It’s the approach that lets you sleep well at night. If the idea of a high-burn, high-pressure aggressive approach keeps you up at 2 AM second-guessing every decision, that’s a signal. Likewise, if playing it safe makes you feel restless, like you’re not swinging hard enough, that’s a signal too. Pay attention to how you feel — it’s often more informative than you realize.

And most importantly, it’s the approach that allows you to execute to the max. Because in the end, stellar execution — not just the strategy you choose — is what truly wins championships. A common strategy executed flawlessly will usually beat a perfect strategy executed poorly. Your ability to operate at a high level and with full focus, matters more than whether you’re "aggressive" or "conservative" in theory.

‍

A few additional words of advice:

It doesn’t have to be binary. Building aggressively or conservatively isn't a black-and-white choice. There are countless shades of gray. You can take a generally conservative approach but be fully aggressive at time, while still building meaningful buffers and extra runway so you're not living on the edge every day. Smart founders know how to blend aggression and caution in ways that match the reality of their company, market, and team.

‍

And of course, stay self-aware in regards your own decision-making process. Stay open to alternatives. Even after you choose a direction, keep periodically re-evaluating it. You’re ability to adapt and adjust at times is is critical. You’ll know that at every critical intersection, you made the best decision you could — not based on ego, trends, or pressure, but based on clear-eyed thinking.

That mindset — of commitment to stellar execution execution, honest self-reflection and openness to apply a mixed approach at times — will serve you far more than any single "aggressive" or "conservative" label ever could.