Why do operators like Nithin Kamath and Sridhar Vembu refuse to buy growth?
Nithin Kamath states it as a freedom rather than a sacrifice: it is a good place to be when you do not have to look at customers in terms of acquisition cost and lifetime value, because then nothing forces you to push people into trading or to sell products that suit you rather than them. It began as a constraint, since Zerodha had no money to advertise at launch, and it survived on purpose: referral incentives started in 2010, changed repeatedly with regulation, were disallowed around 2018 and 2019, and today there are none at all, yet referrals stayed roughly flat. Sridhar Vembu makes the same argument from the product side, that venture capital forces you to grow faster by spending on sales and marketing instead of R&D, and if you do not invest enough in R&D you will not have long term growth. Zoho crossed a billion dollars in revenue profitably, and Mani Vembu confirms the spend on R&D is still a lot more than the spend on marketing.
Go deeper
5 resources, 5 India-specific, 5 link-checked.
📄 Article
✓ Link checkedIndiaFreeBeginner
The whole mental model in one short post: not measuring acquisition cost and lifetime value is the point, not an oversight, and he spells out what it buys him.
The referral history, including the years incentives existed, the regulatory ban, and the striking observation that referrals stayed roughly flat once the incentives went away.
The clearest statement of the tradeoff in his own words: venture capital pushes spend toward sales and marketing and away from R&D, and he names what that costs you later.
The present day proof that this is a policy and not a phase, with Mani Vembu confirming R&D spend still exceeds marketing spend at a billion dollar company.
The written answer quotes Vembu from print. Here he takes open questions for an hour on running a company that was profitable from year one and spends on R&D instead of buying growth, which is the reasoning behind the quote.