Is it wrong?
Disclaimer: I'm not any kind of economic expert, it's just contemplation.
If, on the other hand, the startup's goods/services make their customers only 1% more efficient, then they will struggle to make a big sale when interest rates are 4%.
Interest rate imply borrowing money under a specific agreement and such borrowing seems not to be necessary in every case.
Since liquidity / credit is hard to come by, business have a hard time starting new ventures. For business that do make it through these environments, they usually are much healthier but (potentially) slower growing -- less VC pumped companies that are only (potentially) profitable due to scale
Now in hyperinflation environments, all of this goes out the window: https://fee.org/articles/hyperinflation-lessons-from-south-a...
With that being said, we thankfully/shouldn't end up in that situation as the fed has stated they will keep raising rates (and we luckily have a strong labor market currently to support this) and want a softening in labor market (which hampers wage-spiral inflation as well as driving demand side down) which based on last weeks numbers shows we are not close to achieving, and they want real positive returns across the entire yield -- which we are quite a ways from as well based on the last reported inflation numbers: https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
Since inflation is being driven by supply side constraints, new businesses in theory should emerge in these areas. In the long run, supply constraints should fall to a more manageable level, so prices should fall thus increasing demand and we end up ideally in a nice equilibrium
Going back to your point though, while money is an asset, it's also a form of trade. Money is way better medium of exchange than say bartering where say I may have a chicken for sale but I have enough milk right now, and so I won't take your milk unless the price is astronomically good -- leading to very inefficient markets. The early history of united states currency is fascinating, as no one really trusted what currency was really worth (many issuers) -- also leading to inefficient markets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zkADfv0boQ
In more recent years we moved away from the gold standard, and currently are in fiat. In a fiat system, the value of the dollar is very tightly correlated with bonds and treasuries of the country -- which are backed by the tax payer base of that country. Here in the united states, we are lucky to have one of the largest educated and wealthy workforces in the world with high property rights, high freedom, and relatively speaking higher equality -- definitely not perfect, but better than most places. Hence why US bonds are considered "risk free". Currencies are complicated as these too can be assets and the FX market is 10x the size of the bond market. These can be manipulated, such as via interest rates as well (as we are currently witnessing)
To improve the underlying populace/tax base though you need to improve the factors of production of the nation: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/factors-production.asp#...
Without that you can potentially pull this off with taxes, but in theory this leads to deadweight loss (how much so I believe has been of debate, and inelastic vs elastic items will vary a lot), and could lead to potential capital flight and brain draining so is a tricky lever to pull
Sorry I went on a bit of tangent/rant. Also, I'm a software developer and not an economist and only have taken a couple of classes in uni and highschool specifically to econ (I was a finance major though) so take this with a grain of salt, but I do find this stuff fascinating