that is exactly correct. VC's are facilitators, middlemen, and wholesalers, they are not equity holders. Their goal is to move equity. If the 'end-user' of the equity ends up owning a great business, great, if not, makes no difference to the VCs. You could argue there's reputation risk at stake but I don't see it: Fred Wilson made his name with geocities, a company that never earned any dividends for its ultimate owners (yahoo) while generating huge returns for its equity resellers. And we celebrate him and that deal as a success. Finding the greatest sucker is not a sustainable strategy, it's simple wealth transfer, no value gets created. it's not a way forward.
It's true that VCs have moved a lot of eventually worthless equity but they've also moved a lot of really valuable equity. Google, Amazon, Genentech, Oracle, etc. are companies with real, fundamental long-term value which could not have existed without some kind of investor (whether you call it a "VC" is largely semantic).
