Venture Capital In Technology

Excited to share the insights from my Venture Capital class at Stanford University Graduate School of Business where we discussed "VC Group Decision Making,” and explored how top investors structure their decision-making processes to find (and fund 🙂 ) the next unicorns.    Key takeaways:    1. The Power of Small Teams: VCs keep their teams lean (average of 5 partners) to streamline decisions and avoid groupthink. This aligns with research on optimal team sizes and Amazon's famous "two-pizza team" rule.    2. Diverse Decision-Making Models: We examined various VC decision-making approaches, from unanimous voting to independent decisions. Counterintuitive result: high-performing VC firms often avoid strict unanimity rules.    3. The "Agree to Disagree" Principle: As Alastair (Alex) Rampell from Andreessen Horowitz says, "Conviction must beat consensus." We explored how this mindset allows VCs to back potentially controversial but groundbreaking ideas.    4. Empowering "Rebels": We discussed real-world examples, like the Airbnb investment story, showcasing how VCs sometimes let individual partners champion unconventional deals.    5. Innovative Decision Structures: Some firms, like Founders Fund, implement flexible voting systems based on deal size, allowing for quicker decisions on smaller investments.    6. Fostering Constructive Disagreement: We looked at strategies like assigning devil's advocates, using "red teams," and implementing specific speaking orders to encourage diverse perspectives.    These insights aren't just for VCs – they're valuable for anyone involved in high-stakes decision-making. By adopting some of these strategies, you can make more informed decisions that will drive innovation and growth.    What decision-making strategies have you found most effective in your organization? I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences! #stanford #stanfordgsb #venturecapital #startups #innovation #technology #founders #venturemindset

VCs talk about how much they raise. We should also talk about how much gets returned. We celebrate every fund close. Every glossy press release. But the real scoreboard for venture capital is brutally simple: DPI: Distributions to Paid-In Capital. Not what’s marked up. Not what’s promised. What’s actually realized. Yes, LPs want to back bold founders and iconic companies. But they also have fiduciary obligations. They need liquidity. If venture capital doesn’t return capital, the stories stop. Globally, venture capital is showing signs of strain under its own hype. Historically, only 1 in 10 funds hits a 3x return. In the U.S., half of 2018 vintages haven’t returned a single dollar. The so-called illiquidity premium is starting to look like an illiquidity penalty. Not compensation, but risk. We are entering a new era. The boom was built on cheap capital and optimistic narratives. What comes next will be quieter and more disciplined. In MENA, where VC performance data is still sorely lacking, there are signs of progress. Kudos to BECO Capital for disclosing a 2.41x DPI on Fund I (2015 vintage) and to Middle East Venture Partners (MEVP), whose Fund I (2011) achieved a 2.5x DPI, with Fund II (2015) currently at 1.1x+. Our region is at an inflection point; free from legacy constraints and backed by patient sovereign capital. We don’t have to inherit outdated models. We can build a better and more relevant playbook. So what does a more honest, resilient model look like in practice? 1. Prioritize DPI over TVPI - Paper returns don’t build ecosystems. Real ones do. 2. Fund discovery, not just scale - Focus on product-market fit validation, before fueling the top-line growth engine 3. Anchor valuations in fundamentals - A clean $100M exit beats a billion-dollar mirage. 4. Design tools for our market - Secondaries (Key Capital), venture debt (Shorooq), revenue-based equity (STV NICE Fund) - not imported frameworks that ignore regional realities. 5. Align capital with national strategy -Gulf capital must serve national priorities: industrial scale, deep tech, job creation, and long-term economic resilience. This is not a reset. This is a reckoning. If we want to lead, we must build a new model - grounded in truth, transparency, and long-term value. The illusion is over. And this time, let's not measure success by hype, headlines, or markups. Let's measure it by what’s real. What else needs to change in how we build and back companies in MENA/GCC? I’d love to hear from VCs, LPs, and founders navigating this shift. #VentureCapital #MENA #DPI #Startup #Entrepreneurship #PrivateCapital

Even though I run a Venture Capital fund, I was super surprised to learn that VC funds are now holding more dry powder than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis. What? I knew this to be the case post tech bubble of 2020-2021, where limited partners poured capital into funds, but I thought that by 2025, those reserves had been depleted. If you talk to founders, it definitely feels that way! But I was wrong, according to PitchBook (see chart below) here's what's behind the VC cash glut: ✔️ Record Highs: 53% of the $677B in global VC dry powder is held by funds aged three to five years. ✔️ Market Downturn Impact: The prolonged tech market downturn has left VCs with excess cash and limited deployment opportunities to make fund math work. ✔️ Alternative Liquidity Options: Many VCs have explored options like selling extensions, continuation funds, or flipping equity stakes. ✔️ Strategic Rationing: VCs are rationing capital due to fewer chances to deploy reserves, with increased time between funding rounds for startups. ✔️ Cautious Approach: The perception that there just aren’t tons of large scale, quality deals out there, VCs are now considering options like allocating more funds for follow-on investments or even returning capital commitments, but I doubt many will do that. We extended our fund deployment timeline to deal with this issue. Anyway, good news for founders if they can unlock some of this cash...

ASPIRING VCs: When I hire a junior investor, I want them to already know what I call the "Big 13." 1. Term Sheets 2. SAFEs + Convertible Notes 3. Cap Tables / Returns Waterfalls (MOIC, IRR) 4. Startup Metrics (Growth, Efficiency) 5. Unit Economics 6. Cohort Analysis 7. Valuation (Public Comps, Precedent Txs, DCF) 8. Investment Memos 9. Excel + PPT 10. Venture Debt 11. Fund Performance Metrics (DPI, TVPI, RVPI) 12. How Exits Work (M&A, IPOs, Secondaries) 13. The LP Universe (HNWI, S/MFO, E&F, DBPP, SWF) If you can CREDIBLY DEMONSTRATE your knowledge of the Big 13 before/during an interview process, the risk of hiring you in the eyes of the senior VC goes down considerably. The senior VC will feel comfortable dropping you into fast-moving deal diligence processes knowing you can complete the following types of requests*: "Draft a term sheet to invest $2m at an $8m valuation. Refresh the option pool to 15% and convert all outstanding securities before our investment." "Calculate the gross-margin adjusted, fully-loaded CAC Payback Period and LTV:CAC ratio. Use the annualized churn rate to estimate the customer lifetime." "Run a cohort analysis on both NDR and DAUs. See if the retention curve is flattening and engagement rates follow a smiling curve." "Pull data from our fund admin to create a performance report for our LP newsletter. Show current and forecasted DPI, TVPI, and RVPI. Ensure you can drill down into each portfolio company to support the forecast." *These are all tasks I've been asked to complete as a junior VC.

#TeachMeTuesday We often assume that venture capital (VC) simply “finds the best startups.” But what actually shapes which high-tech ventures get funded - especially when science and universities are involved? 👉 This paper dives into a crucial but underexplored space: VC investment in university spin-offs - firms built to commercialize academic research. 📄 In a @Journal of Corporate Finance article, @Xiaoqing Maggie Fu, Richard Harrison, and @Dongfu Franco Li analyze VC investment patterns in university spin-offs in China. We already know that VC plays a central role in scaling innovation. It brings not just funding, but networks, expertise, and credibility. That is why in the GII VC has lots of variables and that we "track" VC closely at World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO - https://lnkd.in/eeb2brM8 and https://lnkd.in/esuVZ7uV (using VC to uncover the global top 100 top innovation clusters). But the key question is: how do investors navigate the uncertainty and information gaps around these science-based ventures? This paper offers three important insights: 🔍 1. No simple bias against university spin-offs Despite higher uncertainty, private VCs do not systematically avoid university spin-offs. The idea that academic ventures are “too risky” is more nuanced than often assumed. 🏛️ 2. Government VC plays a catalytic role Rather than crowding out private investment, government VC can crowd in private capital - acting as a signal of quality and reducing uncertainty. 🤝 3. Signals matter—deeply University spin-offs attract more VC when founders send credible signals: - Strong initial equity commitment (“skin in the game”) - Willingness to share control - Clear value proposition rooted in science 🧠 What this implies for innovation policy Before capital flows, there is a problem of information and trust. Science-based ventures are complex, uncertain, and long-term. Investors are not just funding ideas—they are interpreting signals under uncertainty. 🏛️ What could better support look like? Building on the paper, three directions stand out: 🔔 Strengthen early-stage signaling environments (e.g. proof-of-concept funding, translational programs) 🔔 Use public VC strategically to de-risk and certify high-potential science ventures 🔔 Support founders not just financially, but in governance, credibility, and investor readiness I wonder if anybody knows how the evidence looks in OECD type economies, feel free to put papers in the comments. 🚀 This connects directly to the upcoming Global Innovation Index 2026 theme: “Powering Entrepreneurs at the Frontier of Science: Turning Pilots into Pipelines.” Dealroom.co Lorena Rivera León Science-based start-ups - whether in quantum, biotech, clean energy, or advanced materials - face exactly these challenges: long timelines, high capital intensity, and deep uncertainty. #TeachMeTuesday

The problem with corporate venture capital is not that it is corporate. The problem is when it forgets it is venture capital. That was one of the themes I enjoyed discussing with Connie Loizos at StrictlyVC in San Francisco. For entrepreneurs, the best question is not whether VCs or CVCs are “better.” The better question is: what does each investor uniquely bring to help the company win? 🔹 The best traditional VCs bring venture-building superpowers They bring pattern recognition across markets, speed, company-building experience, fundraising judgment, governance discipline, talent networks, and the ability to help founders navigate the journey from one financing milestone to the next. 🔹 The best CVCs bring strategic and industrial superpowers They bring technical depth, industrial context, customer insight, supply-chain understanding, manufacturing perspective, regulatory awareness, and the ability to help founders test whether a breakthrough can scale into the real world. 🔹 For deeptech founders, both are significant A company does not become great because it has more capital. It becomes great because the right people around the (cap) table help it make better decisions, avoid avoidable mistakes, open the right doors to customers and partners, and preserve the courage to build through uncertainty. When VCs and CVCs work well together, the founder gets something powerful: venture discipline and strategic depth. Financial ambition and industrial relevance. Speed and substance. The Yin and the Yang so to speak. That is the partnership model I believe in. At TDK Ventures, we try to stay very clear on our role: to invest with financial discipline, serve entrepreneurs first, and bring the best of TDK’s technical and industrial expertise when it can genuinely help the company. Not as a substitute for great VCs. As a complement to them. Because the best cap tables are not collections of logos. They are systems of support designed around the founder’s mission. Thank you Connie & StrictlyVC for the thoughtful conversation, and to everyone who joined us in San Francisco. Read more about our conversation here: https://lnkd.in/dcPyvCFF

Fundraising in 2026? Here are 30 India-focused VC funds with fresh capital to deploy right now India’s venture ecosystem is quietly but decisively rebounding. • VC funding jumped to $13.7B in 2024, 1.4x YoY • $12.1B+ in new VC and PE funds launched in 2025 alone • 58% of new funds are focused on early-stage startups • 26 tech IPOs in the last 24 months (recycled capital back into the ecosystem) The mood for 2026 is disciplined re-acceleration. Capital is flowing back, but toward high-conviction founders building in: • AI and AI infrastructure • India-stack B2B and SaaS • Fintech • Consumer brands • Climate and deeptech Most new funds aim to deploy 60 to 70% of their capital in the first 3 to 4 years. Fresh capital means deployment pressure. Deployment pressure means faster decisions. Faster decisions mean better odds for founders raising in 2026. Below are 30 India-focused funds that recently closed capital and are actively looking for deals, grouped by stage. Pre-seed to Series A: • 360 ONE Asset (Mumbai) Sector-agnostic • 888vc (Bengaluru) AI and deeptech • Accel in India (Bengaluru) AI and fintech • ajvc (Delhi) Sector-agnostic • Blume Ventures (Mumbai) Consumer and fintech • Chiratae Ventures (Bengaluru) AI and deeptech • Good Capital (Delhi) AI and automation • Gruhas Collective Consumer Fund (Bengaluru) Consumer and D2C • IIFL (India Infoline Group) Fintech Fund (Mumbai) Fintech • IndiaQuotient (Mumbai) Consumer and SaaS • Info Edge Ventures (Noida) Sector-agnostic • Prime Ventures (VC) (Bengaluru) Fintech and SaaS • Yali Capital (Bengaluru) Deeptech and AI Seed to Series B: • A91 Partners (Mumbai) Consumer and fintech • Atomic Capital (Mumbai) Consumer brands • Dabur India Limited CVC (Delhi) Consumer and D2C • Elev8 Venture Partners (Mumbai) Enterprise software and fintech • Northpoint Capital (Bengaluru) AI and fintech Series B and beyond: • Artha India Ventures Fund (Mumbai) Technology and climate • Avendus Future Leaders Fund (Mumbai) Late-stage tech • ChrysCapital (Mumbai) Consumer and healthcare • Elevation Capital (Gurugram) Consumer and fintech • Multiples Alternate Asset Management Continuation Fund (Mumbai) Fintech and healthcare • Trident Growth Partners (India) (Bengaluru) SaaS and manufacturing • Wipro Ventures (Bengaluru) Enterprise software Bottom line for founders: If you are planning to raise in 2026, this is the strongest capital setup India has seen in years. Fresh funds. Clear themes. Faster conviction. India is very much winning. --- If you know any other funds with fresh capital to deploy, do tag them below!

I’m starting a new series called VC for Dummies, not because people are dumb, but because venture is a world where everyone pretends they understand everything, and no one wants to admit they… don’t. And honestly, knowledge is power. If you want to raise from VCs or become one, you should know what this industry actually runs on. Here’s the simplest way to think about venture capital: Most businesses grow by earning money → reinvesting → expanding. Slow, steady, linear. Venture flips that. A VC gives you the fuel before the engine works. In return, they take a small slice of your company and hope that one day it becomes so big that their tiny slice is life-changing. But the real misunderstanding sits in the probability curve. A fund isn’t expecting 20/20 winners. They expect several companies to stall, a bunch to survive, and maybe 1–2 to explode so dramatically that they carry the entire portfolio. Venture isn’t a “fairness” model. It’s a power law model. That’s why questions around speed, market size, and ambition feel intense. VCs are not checking whether you’re “good enough” today. They’re checking whether your ceiling matches the size of outcome their model depends on. Once you understand that, the whole dance becomes less intimidating. This series will break down the mechanics, incentives, and psychology of VC so you know exactly what game you’re stepping into. Welcome to VC for Dummies. Ep #1: What is venture capital?!

71% of exit dollars in 2024 came from a new avenue : secondaries. Historically, IPOs and M&A have been the dominant exit paths for venture backed companies. Some years IPOs dominate, other M&A dominates, but in 2024 secondaries captured the super majority. When a company sells new shares to investors in exchange for dollars, they create new shares in the company - primary shares. When existing shareholders sell their shares to new investors, we call this a secondary sale. An employee tender is a secondary sale offered to employees of the company. But secondary sales can also occur between one venture capitalist and another venture capitalist. The secondaries market is incredibly opaque. So the figures gathered here are extremely rough estimates but should be directionally correct. There has been a huge challenge in liquidity since 2022 with the IPO market effectively silent, and M&A also stymied. In response, capital markets respond in a way they always do. They flood capital where there’s opportunity. And now the primary path to liquidity within venture are secondaries. This is based on a Pitchbook analysis of the overall secondary market released in Q1 of 2025. This mirrors the private equity industry. I’ve written previously about how venture capital and private equity have parallel paths. Here I’m using a slightly different and narrower dataset, but you can see the announced transactions that have been reported that are outside the scope of private exchanges are roughly 20 to 30% within both private equity and venture capital. Over the last 10 years private equity has averaged about 28% secondaries as a form of liquidity. As in private equity, we should start to expect secondaries to become a permanent and significant part of venture capital liquidity for both employees of companies and also investors. With the target ARR required to achieve an IPO growing from $80m in 2008 to approximately $250m today, secondaries will become a permanent fixture in venture capital markets. It’s not just a temporary anomaly, but a structural evolution in how venture capital will function and ultimately evolve to look a bit more like private equity.

I always look at these 4 metrics to find potential winners: 👇 (Especially true for B2B startups) 1️⃣ Chunky ACV (Annual Contract Value) 5-6 figures per contract. Long duration, like 2-3 years. This means significant growth per client over time and a high chance of attractive payback in < 1 year. 2️⃣ Shorter Sales Cycles Ideally less than 4 months. Swift deal closures—less time, more action. 3️⃣ High Margins Think 85% gross margins. More top-line reaching the bottom line, and profitability becomes inevitable with well-managed expenses. 4️⃣ Low Churn Less churn = steady recurring revenue Less time and money are needed to snag new clients. For B2B Enterprise monthly user churn: 🔸 <0.5% is great. 🔸 1-2% is good. These are gears working to create strong economics. They stack up, generate internal capital, and catalyse scale. We use these key numbers as a litmus test to find resilient businesses. When done right, B2B tech offers investors attractive returns adjusted to risk. P.S. These metrics are usually present in the post-seed stage. If you're in the super early investing game, they might not be fully available yet.