A16z: To Crypto Founders, It's Better When Companies Don't Buy the Best Technology

Null

Written by: Pyrs Carvolth, Christian Crowley, a16z

Translated by: Chopper, Foresight News

In the current blockchain application cycle, founders are learning a disturbing but profound lesson: companies don’t buy the “best” technology; they buy the upgrade path with the least disruption.

For decades, new enterprise-level technologies have promised to deliver exponential improvements over traditional infrastructure: faster settlements, lower costs, cleaner architecture. But in practice, the implementation rarely matches the full extent of these technical advantages.

This means: if your product is “better” but still can’t win, the gap isn’t in performance but in product-market fit.

This article is addressed to a group of crypto founders: those who started in public chains and are now struggling to pivot toward enterprise solutions. For many, this is a huge blind spot. Below, we share key insights based on our experience, successful cases of founders selling products to enterprises, and real feedback from enterprise buyers, to help everyone better pitch and close deals with companies.

What Does “Best” Really Mean?

Within large enterprises, “the best technology” is one that integrates seamlessly with existing systems, approval processes, risk models, and incentive structures.

SWIFT is slow and expensive but remains dominant. Why? Because it offers shared governance and regulatory security. COBOL is still in use because rewriting stable, proven systems poses survival risks. Batch file transfers persist because they create clear checkpoints and audit trails.

A potentially uncomfortable conclusion is: enterprise adoption of blockchain is hindered not by lack of education or vision, but by misaligned product design. Founders who insist on pushing the most perfect form of technology will keep hitting walls. Those who treat enterprise constraints as design inputs rather than compromises are more likely to succeed.

Therefore, don’t diminish blockchain’s value; instead, focus on packaging the technology into an enterprise-acceptable version, which requires the following approaches.

Enterprises Care More About Losses Than Gains

A common mistake founders make when pitching to enterprises is assuming decision-makers are primarily driven by benefits: better technology, faster systems, lower costs, cleaner architecture, etc.

In reality, the core motivation for enterprise buyers is minimizing downside risk.

Why? Because in large organizations, the cost of failure is asymmetric. Unlike small startups, founders who haven’t worked in big companies often overlook this. Missing an opportunity rarely leads to punishment, but obvious mistakes—especially involving unfamiliar new tech—can severely impact careers, trigger audits, or even attract regulatory scrutiny.

Decision-makers rarely benefit directly from the technology they recommend. Even if strategic alignment and company-level investments are involved, benefits are often dispersed and indirect. But losses are immediate and often personal.

As a result, enterprise decisions are rarely driven by “what could be achieved.” Instead, they are driven by “what is highly unlikely to fail.” This explains why many “better” technologies struggle to gain traction. The hurdle isn’t technical superiority but whether using the technology makes the decision-maker’s job safer or more dangerous.

So, you need to rethink: who is your customer? One of the biggest mistakes founders make in enterprise sales is assuming “the most knowledgeable technical person” is the buyer. In reality, enterprise adoption is rarely driven by technical conviction; it’s more about organizational dynamics.

In large organizations, decisions are less about benefits and more about risk management, coordination costs, and accountability. At scale, most organizations outsource some decision processes to consultants—not because they lack intelligence or expertise, but because key decisions must be continuously validated and defensible. Engaging reputable third parties provides external endorsement, disperses responsibility, and offers credible backing when decisions are questioned later. Most Fortune 500 companies operate this way, which is why they allocate huge budgets to consulting firms annually.

In other words: the larger the organization, the more decisions must withstand internal scrutiny afterward. As the saying goes: “No one gets fired for hiring McKinsey.”

How Do Companies Make Decisions?

Corporate decision-making is similar to how many now use ChatGPT: not to make decisions for us, but to test ideas, weigh pros and cons, reduce uncertainty, while remaining responsible for the outcome.

The process is largely the same, but the support layer is human, not a large model.

New decisions must pass through layers of legal, compliance, risk, procurement, security, and executive oversight. Each layer has different concerns, such as:

• What could go wrong?

• Who is responsible if it does?

• How does it fit with existing systems?

• How do I explain this to executives, regulators, or the board?

Therefore, for truly innovative projects, “the customer” is rarely a single buyer. Instead, it’s a coalition of stakeholders, many of whom are more concerned with avoiding mistakes than with innovation.

Many technically superior products fail here: not because they can’t be used, but because the organization lacks the people who can safely operate them.

For example, consider an online gambling platform. With the rise of prediction markets, crypto “salespeople” (such as fiat on-ramp providers) might see online sports betting as a natural enterprise client. But to do so, they must understand that the regulatory framework for online sports betting differs from prediction markets, including licensing in different states. Knowing that state regulators have varying attitudes toward crypto, the on-ramp provider realizes that its clients aren’t the engineering or product teams eager to access crypto liquidity, but legal, compliance, and finance teams concerned about existing gambling licenses and fiat business risks.

The simplest solution is to identify decision-makers early. Don’t hesitate to ask your product advocates (those who like your product) how they can help push it internally. Behind the scenes, legal, compliance, risk, finance, and security teams hold veto power and have very different concerns. A winning team will package the product as a risk-controlled decision, with ready-made answers and a clear benefit/risk framework for stakeholders. By asking questions, you’ll understand who to tailor your messaging for and find a seemingly safe, reassuring “consent” path.

Consulting Firms

Often, new technologies reach enterprise buyers through intermediaries—consultants, system integrators, auditors—who play a key role in translating and legitimizing new solutions. Whether you like it or not, they are gatekeepers. They use familiar frameworks and collaboration models to convert new proposals into familiar concepts, turning uncertainty into actionable advice.

Founders often feel frustrated or suspicious of these intermediaries, thinking they slow down progress, add unnecessary bureaucracy, or become an extra vested interest influencing final decisions. They are right—indeed! But founders must be pragmatic: in the US alone, the management consulting market is projected to exceed $130 billion by 2026, mostly driven by large enterprises seeking help with strategy, risk, and transformation. While blockchain-related projects are a small part of this, don’t assume that simply branding your project as “blockchain” will bypass this decision-making layer.

This pattern has influenced enterprise decision-making for decades. Even if you’re selling a blockchain solution, this logic remains. Our experience working with Fortune 500 companies, large banks, and asset managers repeatedly shows that ignoring this layer can lead to strategic errors.

A typical example is Deloitte’s partnership with Digital Asset: by collaborating with a trusted consulting firm like Deloitte, Digital Asset’s blockchain infrastructure is repackaged into familiar enterprise language—governance, risk, compliance. For institutional buyers, the involvement of a credible third party not only validates the technology but also clarifies the path to implementation.

Don’t Use the Same Pitch

Because decision-makers are highly sensitive to their own needs—especially downside risks—you must tailor your pitch: don’t use the same sales deck, PPT, or framework for every potential client.

Details matter. Two large banks may seem similar on the surface, but their systems, constraints, and internal priorities can be vastly different. What resonates with one may be ineffective with the other.

A one-size-fits-all approach signals that you haven’t taken the time to understand their specific project definition. Without tailored messaging, it’s hard for organizations to believe your solution will fit perfectly.

Another serious mistake is the “start from scratch” narrative. In crypto, founders often envision a completely new future: replacing legacy systems entirely with newer, decentralized tech to usher in a new era. But in reality, most enterprises won’t do that. Traditional infrastructure is deeply embedded in workflows, compliance processes, vendor contracts, reporting systems, and countless touchpoints with stakeholders. Starting over would not only disrupt daily operations but also introduce significant risks.

The broader the scope of change, the more internal resistance there is: bigger decisions require larger coalitions.

Successful cases we’ve seen involve founders first adapting to the existing enterprise environment, rather than demanding clients reshape their entire operation. When designing entry points, aim to integrate with existing systems and workflows, minimizing disruption and establishing reliable footholds.

A recent example is Uniswap’s partnership with BlackRock on tokenized funds. Uniswap didn’t position DeFi as a replacement for traditional asset management but instead provided permissionless secondary market liquidity for products issued under BlackRock’s existing regulatory and fund structures. This integration didn’t require BlackRock to abandon its current model; it simply extended it on-chain.

Once your solution passes procurement and is officially deployed, it’s still possible—and advisable—to pursue larger goals later.

Enterprises Hedge Their Bets; You Want to Be That “Right Hedge”

This risk aversion manifests in predictable behaviors: organizations hedge their bets, often on a large scale.

Large enterprises don’t put all their eggs in one basket with emerging infrastructure; instead, they run multiple experiments simultaneously. They allocate small budgets to several vendors, test various solutions within innovation teams, or run pilots without touching core systems. This approach preserves options and limits exposure.

But founders should beware: being chosen doesn’t mean being adopted. Many crypto companies are just options for enterprises to test the waters. Pilots are fine, but there’s no need to scale prematurely.

The real goal is to become the “most promising hedge.” Achieving this requires not only technical superiority but also professionalism.

Why Professionalism Outweighs Purity

In these markets, clarity, predictability, and credibility often beat pure innovation: technical excellence alone rarely wins. That’s why professionalism is critical—it reduces uncertainty.

By professionalism, we mean designing and presenting products with full awareness of institutional realities—legal constraints, governance processes, existing systems—and operating within those frameworks. Following established practices signals that the product is governable, auditable, and controllable. Whether or not this aligns with the ideals of decentralization or crypto ethos, enterprises view technology through this lens.

This isn’t resistance to change; it’s a rational response to incentives.

Obsessing over ideological purity—be it “decentralization,” “trustlessness,” or other crypto principles—rarely convinces institutions bound by law, regulation, and reputation. Expecting enterprises to fully embrace a “complete vision” overnight is unrealistic and overly ambitious.

Of course, there are breakthrough cases where cutting-edge tech and ideological purity align. LayerZero’s recent launch of the new public chain Zero aims to address enterprise scalability and interoperability while maintaining core decentralization and permissionless innovation principles.

But Zero’s real innovation isn’t just architecture; it’s organizational design. Instead of building a one-size-fits-all network and expecting enterprises to adapt, it collaborates with key partners to create dedicated “Zones” for specific use cases like payments, settlement, and capital markets.

Zero’s architecture, team commitment to these applications, and LayerZero’s brand credibility have significantly eased concerns among large traditional financial institutions. This combination has led firms like Citadel, DTCC, and ICE to become partners.

Founders often interpret enterprise resistance as mere conservatism, bureaucracy, or shortsightedness. Sometimes that’s true, but more often, it’s because most institutions are rational: their goal is to sustain operations, preserve capital, protect reputation, and withstand scrutiny.

In such environments, the most successful technology isn’t necessarily the most elegant or ideologically pure but the one that best fits the enterprise’s current reality.

These insights help us understand the long-term potential of blockchain infrastructure in the enterprise sector.

Transformation rarely happens overnight. Looking back at the 2010s “digital transformation”: despite the technology existing for years, most large companies still modernized core systems gradually, often spending huge sums on consulting firms. Large-scale digital transformation is a step-by-step process—integrating carefully, expanding based on proven use cases, rather than complete overnight replacement. That’s the reality of enterprise change.

Successful founders are those who understand how to implement in phases, not those demanding a full vision from the start.