VCs consider the entire context around their would-be unicorns. They don&#x27;t invest solely on the founder&#x27;s determination. They also consider the plausibility of the idea, the market conditions around the proposed business, the estimated amount of resources needed to compete, etc. It is NOT solely based on one&#x27;s determination to be &quot;a unicorn&quot;, though it&#x27;s nice to have a determined founder.<p>People who believe that will is everything are generally pretty naive. Successful people know that if external conditions were even slightly different, their path wouldn&#x27;t have turned out the way it did, and no one can guarantee it would&#x27;ve been as prosperous.<p>For example, I make an OK living as a software developer. My interest in computers started when my dad brought home a Packard-Bell in the early 90s. He bought it through a discount program that his workplace offered to increase computer ownership amongst their employees. If he had worked for a different company, or if his company had not made it affordable for him to buy a computer when they were still relatively uncommon in homes, it&#x27;s very possible that I would be out there bagging groceries somewhere.<p>If MySpace had been a little wiser, there would&#x27;ve been no room for Facebook. Did the people at MySpace feel the sheer force of Zuckerberg&#x27;s unicorn-desire and decide to just back off? I don&#x27;t think so. He was in the right place (at least half-random) at the right time (80%-ish random) and had the right skillset (probably 10% random). There are many thousands of kids like him that didn&#x27;t have &quot;the stars align&quot; when they had their shot. It doesn&#x27;t mean Z. wanted it harder and it doesn&#x27;t mean that these no-names didn&#x27;t do a good job. The world is not a meritocracy.