Optionality is risk

It feels responsible. It feels safe.

You have a pipeline that includes a government pilot, a B2B enterprise deal, and a waiting list of individual users. You are building features for all of them because you don't want to bet the company on the wrong horse.

You tell yourself: “We are exploring. We are being agile.”

But look at your calendar. You are not exploring. You are fractured.

You are running three different startups with the resources of one. And because of that, none of them are compounding.

The Diagnosis: The Optionality Tax

In the earliest days (pre-product), optionality is an asset. You should explore. But the moment you have traction—even a flicker of it—optionality flips. It becomes a tax.

Here are three specific examples I see this tax paid by technical founders:

1. The "Omnivore" Problem You are trying to sell to Government agencies, Enterprise businesses, and End-users simultaneously. You think this diversifies your risk. In reality, it triples your burn.

• Government needs compliance and slow sales cycles.

• Enterprise needs permissions and integrations.

• End-users need perfect UX and immediate value.

You cannot build three different excellence-bars with a team of five. When you split your resources, you don't get three small wins. You get three failures to launch.

2. The Investor Whiplash You are pitching to Web3 funds, Traditional VCs, and Government Grant committees with three different decks. You think you are "tailoring the message." Actually, you are creating a reputation for confusion.

These groups speak different languages. A Web3 investor looks for tokenomics and decentralization. A Traditional SaaS VC looks for recurring revenue and moats. If you try to keep both lanes open, you end up with a "Frankenstein" narrative that satisfies neither.

VCs talk. If one firm hears you are a "Crypto play" and another hears you are "GovTech," you aren't seen as flexible. You are seen as desperate. You must pick one main lane for your public narrative.

3. The Supply-Side Trap You are building an incredible AI engine to generate assets (supply), but you have zero clarity on who buys them (demand). You keep polishing the tech because the tech is under your control. The market is not. You are "keeping the option open" to sell to anyone, which guarantees you are currently building for no one.

The "Facebook" Delusion

When I challenge founders on this, they almost always point to Big Tech: > “But look at Amazon or Google. They didn’t just do one market. They diversified.”

This is the most dangerous lie in startups.

Yes, they diversified—after they won. Google has Search cash flow to pay for Waymo. Amazon had Book dominance to pay for AWS. They use excess capital to buy optionality.

You are a Seed-stage startup. You do not have excess capital. You have 12 months of runway. You cannot afford the luxury of a "portfolio strategy." You need one spear tip that breaks through.

The Solution: Serial Focus, Not Parallel Chaos

Commitment does not mean "forever." It means "long enough to get the truth."

If you try to test three markets at once, you will never get enough data to know if any of them work. You will only know that you are tired.

Strategy is choosing what not to do. You must move your mindset from "Preserving Options" to "Forcing Conviction."

Pick the one path where the pain is acute and the budget is available. Commit to it for 6 months.

• If it works, you double down.

• If it fails, you have a definitive "No," and you pivot to the next with full resources.

That is scientific exploration. Everything else is just hedging.