Another point: A founder of a "hyped" company can always turn down an investor at a high valuation for another investor at a lower valuation (that presumably offers some other sort of value-add).

The situation Vinod describes would therefore only exist if founders either:

a) Didn't agree with him about the role of an early investor, or

b) Were not optimizing for their company's success.

------ edit ------

It's also worth nothing that if (a) above were common and I were a price-sensitive value-add investor I'd give interviews exactly like the one Vinod gave to Techcrunch.

I'd attempt to convince entrepreneurs that they shouldn't focus on valuations and should instead focus on the benefits investors (like my firm) provide. This isn't an uncommon argument (though it normally happens behind closed doors). Google Ventures, for example, is known to make it [1].

1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2012/07/19/when-fundin...