All VC backed startups are default dead. It's terrible phrasing. You're basically asking if you should stay at your default dead startup or be at another default dead startup.
Another irrelevant data point is how long you have failed to make revenue. We see patterns of startups building things for 4 years, then hit product-market fit 2 years after launch. You have the runway for that, and you've already put in the time. However, there are startups that start from scratch, launch a thing in 4 months then get to PMF 2 months later. You rarely see data where someone launches something 4 months and sees PMF 4 years later. Starting from scratch isn't bad.
It sounds like the problem is with your cofounder and the processes that led you to this point. So based on the given data, I'd say do something else.
That's not true. If you have a startup that actually could pay all its bills and turn a profit if it wanted to, it's default alive. Just because you're choosing instead to spend on growth, that doesn't make it default dead.
That really is the subset of startups we'd call VC backed - interested in hypergrowth and discussions of TAM instead of just making another profitable business.
Another irrelevant data point is how long you have failed to make revenue. We see patterns of startups building things for 4 years, then hit product-market fit 2 years after launch. You have the runway for that, and you've already put in the time. However, there are startups that start from scratch, launch a thing in 4 months then get to PMF 2 months later. You rarely see data where someone launches something 4 months and sees PMF 4 years later. Starting from scratch isn't bad.
It sounds like the problem is with your cofounder and the processes that led you to this point. So based on the given data, I'd say do something else.