My point is that narrative-driven funding is very often the wrong approach. Before people polish their storytelling and pitch decks, they should look at the fundamentals of their business. Then, they probably won't need the whole startup theater to try to get funding. Moreover, if the fundamentals are so bad they can't be funded, it's a signal about the business, isn't it? Maybe that doesn't apply to some one-off unicorn businesses, but it applies to the 99%.
I'd say people are better off going with fundamentals. Because if your fundamentals are bad, but let's say you manage to enthral the investors with your confidence, charisma, and selective optimism, they may fund you, but your negotiating position will be incredibly weak. If they stagger the funding over milestones, upsetting your investors for any matter - product related or not - will mean game over. If they want a lot of equity, you will have to say yes, as they'll still be the one investor tentatively interested, etc. It's a bad deal. It's risking a lot of structural damage to a new business.
With good fundamentals, all of that doesn't apply. If you start a company, get some cash flow going, and show profit, investors will start chasing you. Whatever funding you would have gotten through the usual Silicon Valley venture pitching, you will now get on actually good terms.
> they'll ask you to put up all your personal assets as collateral in exchange for a 20% loan on your existing accounts receivable
Has this happened to you? My experience is that banks offer almost up to 1:1 debt to (company) assets, so long as the business model is clear and profitable. If someone's trying to fund an unprofitable business (like I said, for market capture, for example), then there will be problems. But in that case, the fundamentals aren't great.