For companies, receiving capital from venture funds has two implications. The first one is that most businesses are not attractive to VCs at all since they aren't able to grow much. Such down-to-earth companies should search for other sources of financing, which will be covered further in this article.
Another implication is that dividend-based returns are not enough for VCs, and stable gradual growth doesn't work either. This means they will intend to push the company to invest in development as much as possible even if this makes the business economics unstable and creates the overall risk for it. If your company isn’t large enough to conduct an Initial Public Offering, investors will push you to be acquired even if you don't want to, so that they could get returns.
A famous WeWork case is an excellent example of this. The company rented properties in order to set up offices for gig workers and freelancers. Their economics was initially negative, i.e., WeWork was losing money on each building. However, infused by the funds from a venture firm Vision Fund, they beat all the competitors with better economics and grew to a stunning 47 billion dollars valuation. Only when they were preparing for the IPO and did an initial disclosure of the financials, the large public saw that the company was drastically overvalued, and the valuation dropped to 2.9 billion dollars, which is roughly the amount of cash they got as an investment. Finally, firing the company founder from the CEO position became a notorious final chord. This is an example of unbalanced growth and lousy governance that can be created due to the perverse incentives of venture firms.