This is something I've had difficulty squaring over the course of my career

… This is something I've had difficulty squaring over the course of my career. If a company remains small but makes boatloads of money because it builds a superior product, shouldn't that be rewarded more than having a higher headcount? From the perspective of having run engineering orgs (and a few failed - but enlightening - forays into founding a company), I've learned to believe from my experience that having the smallest team reasonable to achieve great things brings the most positive effects: folks are closer to the outcome, feel a stronger sense of ownership, want the best for the business, and reap the rewards of accomplishment, which in turn motivates the team to achieve and innovate more, resulting in growing revenue for the company. If I were an investor, I'd want smaller teams producing outsized results. Why would I want a gigantic team producing mediocre results?