Not sure how I feel about post-ZIRP founding vs ZIRP founding, here's a sense of the venture incentive economics:
In a ZIRP venture landscape, the underwriting threshold for capital deployment loosens
Thus incentivizes more founders to come out of the woodwork (cushy tech job)
More capital/founders deploy into every nook and cranny of software to be built
Competitive landscape compresses margins everywhere since there's very little real moats or defensibility
Investors want to see growth metrics to raise the next fund
Founders turn toward short-termism when they see all the comparative relative metric progress in announcents all over the place
In a post-ZIRP landscape (with the lingering after-effects of ZIRP committed capital into venture funds and asset valuations & liquidity ballooning from printed helicopter money)
Capital is still figuring out what to do
There's less FOMO and more rationale underwriting process
The net-net of this, is that the venture investors' (and potentially founders) returns compress from capital abundance (and competitive abundance) but perhaps society is better off with an increase of new entrepreneurial "at-bats" for new goods and services at ever competitively-driven lower prices.
Net-net, printing more capital, throwing it around everywhere, just acts as a multiplier on creative destruction. More creation. More death.
More new ventures vehicles, more culling of the vehicles, survival of the most competitive offerings in the Darwinian landscape of receiving payment for goods and services.
In with the new, out with the low fitness vehicles, may the best win.