Early-stage venture capital can either be a collaborative, positive-sum environment or a competitive, zero-sum game. The distinction hinges on the perception of what constitutes a “good deal.” If investors believe there’s a clear consensus on this, they can leverage branding, relationships, and concentrated capital to dominate the field. This shift leads to a landscape where a few powerful players control the market, sidelining smaller firms and weakening the overall industry. Performance metrics reveal that traditional relationship-building and consensus-driven investments often yield poor returns, highlighting the flaws in this competitive mindset. The article contrasts finite games, which focus on short-term wins, with infinite games that prioritize long-term growth and opportunity. Venture capital should adopt an infinite game approach, aiming for widespread access and healthy engagement between capital and talent. In the U.S., the rise of boutique firms is being overshadowed by larger, oligopolistic players that prefer restricted competition, limiting potential growth. Europe’s venture capital scene suffers even more, having never fully embraced an infinite game mentality, leading to stagnation and missed opportunities. To shift towards an infinite game mindset, investors should focus on creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurship, akin to providing public basketball courts for community play. This means prioritizing diverse talent and innovative ideas over conventional pathways. However, the current trend favors exclusivity and gatekeeping, signaling a troubling direction for the industry. Rothenberg’s Paradox illustrates the irony that while capital flows heavily into finite game strategies, the real growth potential lies in fostering inclusive, long-term opportunities. The venture capital landscape may look booming, but it risks becoming a cycle of wealth extraction rather than genuine innovation.