Over the last few years, the mobility industry convinced itself that EV adoption was inevitable.
Billions of dollars poured into companies built around that assumption. Automakers rushed to electrify lineups. Investors chased growth projections that assumed consumers would naturally transition from gas-powered vehicles to EV ownership. Founders sold a story that the future was obviously and inevitably electric.
Then EV incentives disappeared, demand slowed and some of the industry’s biggest bets started collapsing under their own weight. None of that surprised me.
I founded Zevo, a peer-to-peer EV platform, in 2022. We have since raised nearly $15 million entirely from private capital, primarily high-net-worth individuals writing personal checks rather than institutional investment firms. That funding path was intentional. I did not believe mobility needed more hype. I believed it needed more discipline.
Building in this sector taught me that the EV adoption problem and the funding problem were connected. Both were driven by the same mistake of believing the narrative before proving the economics. Consumers were supposed to buy EVs because the future was electric. Founders were supposed to raise from funds because scale would follow.
In both cases, the numbers should have mattered more than the story.
EV economics were hiding in plain sight
For too long, the EV conversation centered too much on sustainability, climate messaging and the belief that consumers would eventually adopt EVs because they felt morally or culturally compelled. But the demand I saw was more practical. Many people cared less about whether their vehicle helped save the world than whether it offered a better driving experience, lower costs, easier access or a way to earn income.
To solve this, we approached EV adoption as a two-sided marketplace problem. Drivers needed affordable, flexible access without ownership, while owners were sitting on depreciating, underused assets. The model worked only if both sides could see the economics immediately. If a renter could access a vehicle more affordably, and an owner could generate income from an asset they already owned, there was a market.
That same standard guided our fundraising. We were not selling inevitability. We showed whether the model worked.
This was critical because mobility is an unforgiving business. Cars are expensive, insurance is complicated and supply chains are unpredictable. Weak models don’t become strong just because more capital is poured into them. Institutional money can be powerful for the right company at the right stage. But in a capital-intensive category like mobility, it can also reward founders for selling the size of the market before proving the behavior inside it.
That is the trap I wanted to avoid.
Capital is changing
Raising private capital taught me important lessons applicable beyond mobility. We were forced to stay nearer to operations and reality. Without an infinite runway, there was less room to subsidize behavior that might not become sustainable. The business had to stay focused on what customers actually needed and what they were willing to pay for.
I also realized that capital did not have to come from traditional venture hubs. There is still a tendency in tech to assume serious funding has to flow through San Francisco or New York, but capital is increasingly available in markets that historically sat outside the center of the venture ecosystem. North Texas is a good example. Much of our funding has come from Dallas, a rapidly growing financial ecosystem with a deep pool of private capital and a growing appetite for technology investments.
Just as important, I learned not to confuse private capital with unsophisticated capital. In many cases, I found, the opposite is true. Many of the investors I met with were extremely successful owners and operators themselves. They had built companies, managed assets, taken risks and made payroll, so they not only understood cash flow, margins and risk, but they were no-nonsense. They did not need a theatrical presentation, and they were capable of making conviction bets with their own capital.
I learned the right private investors can force more discipline because they ask practical questions before they buy the story. That made the conversation more direct and the closing process simpler.
The broader lesson
The broader lesson I learned is not that EVs were overhyped or that institutional funding is the wrong path for every founder. The EV transition is real, and traditional capital sources will continue to play an important role in building it.
But founders should be careful when a market story starts to sound inevitable. Inevitability can make companies lazy, investors less disciplined and entire industries mistake hype for adoption.
The next phase of mobility will not be won by companies that tell the biggest story. It will be won by companies that make the economics work for real people in real use cases. Consumers do not adopt new technology because a market narrative says they should. Investors should not fund companies that way either.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Recent Comments