Venture Capital Funding

The Army Just Launched FUZE. A $750M Annual VC Fund for Defense Startups. Secretary Dan Driscoll unveiled the Army's new venture capital model at the Demand Signal Forum in Arlington. Former private equity exec turned Army Secretary just flipped the acquisition playbook. FUZE channels $750M annually into nontraditional contractors. The man behind it? Driscoll ran a $200M VC fund before taking office. Iraq veteran with 10th Mountain Division. Yale Law grad. Sworn in by VP Vance in February. He calls traditional acquisition a "calcified bureaucracy" and he's not wrong. How it works. • Scout external tech, not internal solutions • Live pitch events starting October at AUSA • Other Transactional Authorities for rapid contracts • "Colorless money" flexible funding across programs First targets. • Counter-drone systems (interceptors, jammers) • Electronic warfare for spectrum dominance • Energy resilience (batteries for -40°F operations) • AI-driven autonomy and command systems Two prizes already announced. • $500K for emerging tech (October 2025) • $2.5M for counterstrike capabilities with U.S. Army Europe The shift is stark. Traditional acquisition takes 10+ years. FUZE promises prototypes to programs of record in months. Army labs and 75th Innovation Command vet the tech. Winners scale to production. Critics worry about over-focusing on tech while recruiting struggles. But Ukraine proved agile beats legacy. When commercial drones outpace billion-dollar programs, the model needs disruption. Three ways in. • SBIR/STTR grants for early stage • xTech challenges for specific problems • Direct pitches at AUSA mid-October Startups like Anduril benefit. Legacy primes lose their moat. The Army's telling innovators "we're open for business." Is your tech ready for a VC-style pitch to the Pentagon?

Entrepreneurship on a cliff’s edge The US venture market is poised on a cliff’s edge. If economic conditions worsen, a major correction in venture capital will follow. Emergency action will be required by founders in order to enhance the probability of survival in a liquidity drought.   There are many troubling signs: First, more than 50,000 VC-backed companies are operating in the United States, twice as many as existed in 2016. There are too many firms chasing a fixed commercial opportunity set. These companies now face a shortage in the private capital supply.   Second, “rescue rounds”, fundings by existing investors to prolong the lifespan of portfolio companies that were expected to have had a liquidity event prior to the liquidity squeeze, stand at a ten-year high. Much of this financing has been at dilutive valuations. The growing volume of layoffs and borrowings by ventures are further signs of this strain. Pitchbook’s Dealmaking Indicator describes this market as the most investor friendly in a decade, which will pressure valuations, further diluting founders. Third, while there has been a recovery in the public markets the IPO market remains stagnant with dire implications for venture capital fund returns. Public listings represent more than eighty percent of venture capital fund investment performance. Fourth, the overhang of approximately 700 unicorns in venture portfolios threatens intermediate term fund returns and capital supply. Without explosive growth in the volume of IPOs of venture capital-backed firms, these portfolio companies will create massive, widespread markdowns in portfolio valuations and estimated investment returns. Fifth, nontraditional investors that have largely driven unicorn valuations have retrenched. These funding sources, from the hedge fund, equity mutual fund and sovereign wealth fund world, have been some of the first investors to experience drastic portfolio value write downs as a result of providing the final private round based upon the dimming prospects for a near-term, attractively valued initial public offering. Their struggle to raise new funds at the targeted size is a further consequence of the liquidity freeze. The current environment and looming headwinds dictate that founders operate their ventures in survival mode, reducing burn rates and focusing on near term financially attractive opportunities. These tactics can drive a firm to the point of financial viability, where internally generated cash flow can fund the survival, if not the growth, of their companies. Financial viability and the prospects of near-term achievement of financial viability will become a critical factor in a venture’s attractiveness to the dwindling supply of private risk capital providers operating on the cliff’s edge and the ground below.  

Venture capital’s growth story is real - but so is its concentration. The result? 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫. Since 1995, the venture asset class has matured from a niche corner of private markets into an institutionalized segment of global capital. But when you zoom out, the real story isn’t how much money has flowed into venture - 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨. I mapped every closed North American venture capital fund from 1995 to 2024, segmented by fund size. The top chart shows total fundraising; the bottom shows the composition of that capital - what % came from small (< $250M) versus large (+1B) mega-funds. The results show a massive structural reallocation: in 1995, 𝟔𝟓% of all VC capital came from sub-$250M funds; today it’s just 𝟏𝟑%. Meanwhile, funds over $1B now account for 𝟔𝟒% - by far the highest share on record. 🔍 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 1️⃣ 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥. Headline fundraising numbers obscure the fact that much of today’s “available” capital is concentrated in a small number of multi-stage funds. That capital behaves differently - price matters less, speed matters more, and experimentation takes a back seat to scale. 2️⃣ 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. The math breaks when funds get too big - returns compress, ownership falls, and even outliers at times struggle to move the needle at the fund level. Yet the pressure to deploy only grows. For GPs, fund size is your strategy - staying disciplined on scale often preserves flexibility, alignment, and return potential. 3️⃣ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. The $250 - 999M fund sits in an increasingly tight spot - too small to match the scale and pricing power of multi-stage platforms, yet too large to lean fully into early-stage risk. It’s a segment being structurally squeezed from both directions. 4️⃣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫. With so few firms now controlling so much capital, venture risks becoming increasingly consensus-driven - large funds chasing the same companies, at the same stages, with the same theses. Capital scale brings efficiency, but it also erodes differentiation. Venture’s growth story has always been told through capital raised. But the composition of that capital is the real signal. The next decade will test whether scale delivers better outcomes - or whether the industry’s edge was always in its smaller, scrappier beginnings. 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞 🤓

🚀 Case closed 🧑⚖️ Deep Tech VC Funds Outperform General Tech Ones 🚀 Did you know that VC funds investing in Deep Tech are delivering an average net IRR that outshines traditional tech funds? 🤯 Here’s the data: 🔹 Deep Tech Funds: 17% weighted net IRR 🔹 Traditional Tech Funds: 10% weighted net IRR Why is this happening? According to a McKinsey & Company study: 1. Front-Loaded Tech Risk: Deep Tech ventures tackle the hardest problems with groundbreaking technologies. Think AI, quantum computing, and advanced robotics. 🌐 2. Longer Horizons: These investments require patience but pay off big time. 🕰️ 3. Strong Moats: Deep Tech startups often have unique IP and less competition, leading to higher valuations. 🏰 The Data Speaks: - Based on 115 Deep Tech-focused funds and 1,572 traditional funds in Europe and North America (2003-2020). - Deep Tech funds have consistently outperformed traditional tech funds since 2003. 📈 What’s the Catch? - Deep Tech requires more capital and longer development times. - But the rewards? Massive! 💰 Europe’s Potential: - Europe hasn’t seen as many Deep Tech-focused funds, but the potential is huge. - Similar regional characteristics and performance benchmarks suggest Europe could match US success. 🌍 So there you go: Investors, it’s time to rethink your strategy. Don’t miss out on the next wave of innovation. Deep Tech is not just the future; it’s the present. 🚀 Let’s dive into Deep Tech and unlock unprecedented returns! 💡 #VentureCapital #DeepTech #Innovation #Investment #TechTrends #FutureTech #Startups #Entrepreneurship #VC --- Feel free to share your thoughts below 👇 💬

Last month, GOI introduced a fantastic set of reforms to help startups secure more Defense contracts. Our Defense Budget is ~₹6.8 Lakh crore out of which approx. ₹1 Lakh crore is spent on operations, maintenance & sustenance (called ”Revenue”) i.e. to keep existing equipment in battle ready state. The updated 2025 version of the Defense Procurement Manual (DPM) replaces the 2009 version; these guidelines cover procurement of spare parts, consumables, software, system upgrades & (any) services. There are 4 key provisions which stand to benefit non-PSU contractors who bid for these Revenue contracts: (1) Removal of the DPSU NOC requirement - catalyst for competition & makes it easier for private contractors to apply (2) Reduction in Liquidated Damage (LD) for experimental projects - catalyst for R&D & private contractors would now be willing to take on experimental project work (3) 15% “Growth of Work” cushion - much needed; this means that the tender process does NOT need to be re-run for a few % deviation in costs (4) Delegation of power to CFAs (Competent Financial Authority) - often, the bottleneck in procurement is approval from above which this reform fixes This reform will provide a massive tailwind to India’s private A&D industry - especially for Indian startups & non-PSU contractors in MRO, components & other ancillaries. 👍 In the short term - a thousand flowers will bloom. But, the learning from the West will hold true in the long term - a select few will emerge as major Primes (cutting across domains) e.g. Raytheon Corp, Lockheed Martin etc The short term momentum will come from indigenization & winning domestic contracts; the long term moat can be created only through exports i.e. winning global contracts through superior technical capability. This is exact the 2047 goal taken by the Govt - to 10X our Defense exports from ₹26K crore today to ₹2.6L crore - ambitious, but small steps are underway 😄 #india #defense

State of #fintech at the end of Q3’2024 by CB Insights Global Funding Trends: 🔵 Fintech #funding fell to $7.3B in Q3’24, a 25% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ) drop. However, the decline adjusts to 13% when excluding large deals from the prior quarter (e.g., Stripe, AlphaSense) 🔵 The average deal size in 2024 remains steady at $12.7M, reflecting a focus on fewer, higher-value #investments despite a 16% drop in total deal volume, reaching the lowest level since 2017. Geographic Insights: 🟠 Emerging Markets Lead Early-Stage Deals: 52% of early-stage deals occurred outside traditional hubs (e.g., US, UK), favoring regions like India, France, and Kenya Sector-Specific Trends: 🟢 Wealth Tech: Notable funding increase with a focus on solutions targeting niche demographics, such as medical professionals. #Wealthtech saw a 67% increase in funding QoQ, driven by significant deals such as Human Interest ($242M) and Earned Wealth ($200M) 🟢 Digital Lending: Continued activity in Asia and the US, with standout deals like DMI Finance ($334M) and MNT-Halan ($158M) 🟢 Payments and Insurtech: Both sectors experienced declines but retained pockets of high-value activity, particularly in #insurance #innovation Investor and Exit Activity: 🟣 #VentureCapital Shift: VC investments accounted for 29% of deals, highlighting a cautious but persistent interest in fintech 🟣 Exits: M&A dominated the exit landscape, with fewer IPOs or SPACs, indicating a shift toward #consolidation over public market enthusiasm. So what does all this mean for the near future? ♻️ We are entering a consolidation phase: With deal volumes at a historic low, the industry is undergoing a consolidation phase. Expect M&A to drive market realignments, especially in crowded subsectors like #payments and lending. ♻️ Increased focus on Emerging Markets: The shift toward less-crowded geographies reflects the untapped potential in markets like #Africa and parts of Asia. Companies targeting these regions may enjoy less competition and high growth prospects. ♻️ Selective Investment Persists: Investors are prioritizing fewer, higher-quality deals. #Startups will face increased pressure to demonstrate solid unit economics and scalability before securing funding. ♻️ Some Sectoral Bright Spots: The wealth tech boom signals a growing appetite for personalized financial management solutions. #Insurtech and #lending (especially in the small business) innovation remain attractive as they address core pain points with digital solutions. ♻️ Challenges for #Unicorns: The slowed rate of unicorn births underscores a recalibration of valuations. Companies aspiring to cross this threshold will likely need to showcase strong #profitability or growth metrics. Also, some of the existing unicorns 🦄 will lose their wings 🪽 if they test the market

🚨 UK Founders: You’re Overlooking This Source of Strategic Capital When UK startups talk about raising a seed round or series A, it’s the same shortlist: 📈 VCs, family offices, angels, maybe a grant. Corporate VCs bring more than money: ✅ Route to scale ✅ Sector validation ✅ Global commercial access ✅ Optionality for M&A or partnership Many CVCs are ready to deploy serious capital if you speak their language. Some of the UK’s most strategic corporate investors today include: 🔋 Energy & Climate Tech • BP Ventures – $500m+ deployed into net zero, hydrogen, and mobility • Shell Ventures – Global, but very active in UK energy transition • Octopus Ventures – Climate tech, deeptech, fintech • National Grid Partners – Investing in grid modernisation, energy AI, cybersecurity 🏦 Finance & Insurtech • Legal & General Capital – Long-term strategic bets in housing, climate and infrastructure • Aviva Ventures – Focused on insurtech, AI, digital health • Barclays Ventures / Rise – Backs fintechs and partners through accelerator programmes • HSBC Ventures – Quietly active in fintech and global trade innovation 🛍️ Retail & Consumer • Unilever Ventures – Backing personal care, beauty, and wellness brands • Ocado Ventures – Investing in robotics, AI, and logistics • Tesco Labs – Pilot and innovation arm (less formal CVC, but worth engaging) 📡 Tech & Telco • BT Group Ventures – Exploring frontier tech for digital transformation • Vodafone Ventures – Historically active, with current focus on IoT, 5G, enterprise 💊 Life Sciences & Health • SR One – Originally GSK’s CVC arm, now global but active in UK biotech • AstraZeneca BioVentureHub – Collaborative innovation at the UK’s biotech frontier • IP Group / Imperial Innovations – Powering spinouts from Oxford, Imperial, UCL, and others ⚙️ Industrial / DeepTech • Rolls-Royce Ventures – Investing in sustainable aerospace and emerging tech • Arup Ventures – Smart cities, sustainability, construction • BAE Systems Applied Intelligence – Cybersecurity, AI, and defence-related innovation Final Thought 💥 If you’re raising a seed or Series A and not talking to these players, you may be leaving strategic firepower on the table. CVCs aren’t slow — they’re selective. But when they move, they move with force. Let’s connect if you’re building something that deserves a strategic backer.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 23/30 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬:𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐕𝐂𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐂 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐦 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 (𝐋𝐏𝐬): Large family offices, pension funds, or institutions with significant capital. Allocate 2-5% of their portfolio to VC, the riskiest but highest-return asset class. 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐆𝐏𝐬): Manage the fund and operations (analysts, EIRs, fund expenses). Earn a 2% management fee and a 20% carry if returns exceed LP expectations (~12% annually). 𝐓𝐡𝐞 2-20 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞: 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐕𝐂 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 A $100M, 10-year fund uses $20M for management fees. Leaves $80M for investments. Expected returns: ~$310M to meet LP demands. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: $100M fund, 10 investments of $8M each, 25% ownership at exit. 𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐬: All exit at $50M: $125M total—far below $310M. 5 exit at $50M, 5 at $100M: $187.5M—still short. One overachiever: $287.5M—almost there. A unicorn: $362.5M—goal achieved. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 5 fail, 3 small exits, 1 medium, 1 large. Likely returns: ~$318M—possible but not common. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐕𝐂𝐬 𝐌𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 Assess risks: development, market, execution, finance. 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬: Team: Cohesive and skilled. TAM: Large addressable market. Technology: Scalable and innovative. Traction: Evidence of growth. Trenches: Competitive advantages. Follow: Priyanshu Pandey #VentureCapital #StartupFunding #BusinessStrategy

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱... Global startup funding hit $𝟭𝟵𝗕 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆—𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀. The 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘁 $𝟭𝟬𝗕, but here's what's really happening... AI and healthcare? They're still getting love from investors. Gaming, consumer startups, and women-led businesses? They're feeling the chill. 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮—𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻-𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 $𝟭𝟵𝟴𝗠 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝟲𝟱% 𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿. But here's what nobody's talking about... The rules have changed. Investors aren't just throwing money at good ideas anymore. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁: - 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 - 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 - 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 The "growth at all costs" era? It's fading away. 𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲: - 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝘁𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 - 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 - 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 - 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 Some VCs are whispering about a rebound later this year... But remember this—the startups that adapt will survive. The rest? They might not make it through this funding winter. What's your view? Are we headed for darker days, or do you see light at the end of the tunnel? Share your thoughts below... #StartupFunding #VentureCapital #BusinessGrowth

🚀 The Harsh Math of VC ............ Why Most Startups Never Make It 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒑 𝑭𝒖𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒍 𝑰𝒔 𝑩𝒓𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒍 Most startups never make it past Series A. Even when they do, only a small fraction emerge as meaningful winners: 📉 ~90% fail outright or stagnate ⚖️ ~10% drive outcomes that matter 💎 Just 1–2% have the power to return an entire fund This asymmetry is the reason investors obsess over “fund-returners” survival alone isn’t enough. 𝑫𝒆𝒆𝒑𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉: 𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌, 𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑩𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒓𝒔 Fewer startups enter the funnel due to high technical risk Funding gaps are wider — the valley of death is deeper But those that break through are often stronger outliers with defensibility and scale DeepTech doesn’t rewrite the math — it makes the funnel narrower, but also more rewarding at the top. 𝑾𝒉𝒚 𝑽𝑪 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒔 𝑳𝒐𝒐𝒌 “𝑮𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒚” (𝑩𝒖𝒕 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒏’𝒕) For a venture fund to survive, its winners must generate outsized returns. Here’s the math: 🎯 Winners need to deliver 5–10× returns ⏳ That translates into 40–60% IRR over 5–7 years Without these multiples, the portfolio collapses under the weight of failures High IRR isn’t greed — it’s survival in a world where most companies vanish before scale. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑳𝒂𝒘 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 Venture capital doesn’t follow averages; it follows power laws. A handful of startups drive the majority of returns. For investors, this means: Betting on outliers, not safe bets Indexing less on “who survives” and more on “who can dominate” Understanding that one fund-returner can offset dozens of failures 📌 𝑻𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒂𝒘𝒂𝒚 Survival is step one. But fund-returning potential is the true currency of venture capital. References Horsley Bridge Data on VC Returns CB Insights: “The Top 20 Reasons Startups Fail” Cambridge Associates: “Venture Capital IRR Benchmarks” Tracxn, "Bain India VC Report, Pitchbook (2025)” #Corporategovernance #Independentdirectors #Startups #VCs #