Enjoyed the read. It aligns with what I'm seeing. Too much capital, too few mega-winners, and a decade-long assumption that round sizes could expand indefinitely without the exits to justify them.
You’re describing the part of the industry everyone tiptoes around: once capital floods the system, the only strategies that work are the ones that don’t depend on power-law scarcity.
Mega-funds can hide in fees; micro-funds can hide in outliers. The mid-market has nowhere to hide.
Most funds can't get more than 10% ownership. So, many of those $100m -$1B are destined to underperform unless they can really be non-consensus and find diamonds in the rough. Not likely. We need a good old fashioned washout - which will happen - and a return to earth on expectations. Agree on nimble small funds that can think differently, but they still depend on the factory line and the foie-gras ing of companies.
VC will work for some, but not for small startups, nor for me. I'm trying to build a start-up on Donations, sponsors and volunteers - a pure grass-roots sweat equity. I am nearly 0-string having supplied all my own labor, blind, so far. As I am trying to create a Knoowledge base for the world, I will only turn to private equity if I am out of time or no other opertions work. But what I am hoping for is a large philanthropic pool to form to help dreamers & movers for Human Good, which is not Venture Capitalism, but Venture Socialism, or VS.
No. Became more of a Ponzi scheme when BCs required growth and spreed not to just raise valuations faster, but to raise new funds off the speed from those other companies from the current fund. House of cards not based on building contrarian world changing companies, but pattern follow the crowd FOMO matching that backed scooters as the next “thing”
Enjoyed the read. It aligns with what I'm seeing. Too much capital, too few mega-winners, and a decade-long assumption that round sizes could expand indefinitely without the exits to justify them.
You’re describing the part of the industry everyone tiptoes around: once capital floods the system, the only strategies that work are the ones that don’t depend on power-law scarcity.
Mega-funds can hide in fees; micro-funds can hide in outliers. The mid-market has nowhere to hide.
Most funds can't get more than 10% ownership. So, many of those $100m -$1B are destined to underperform unless they can really be non-consensus and find diamonds in the rough. Not likely. We need a good old fashioned washout - which will happen - and a return to earth on expectations. Agree on nimble small funds that can think differently, but they still depend on the factory line and the foie-gras ing of companies.
VC will work for some, but not for small startups, nor for me. I'm trying to build a start-up on Donations, sponsors and volunteers - a pure grass-roots sweat equity. I am nearly 0-string having supplied all my own labor, blind, so far. As I am trying to create a Knoowledge base for the world, I will only turn to private equity if I am out of time or no other opertions work. But what I am hoping for is a large philanthropic pool to form to help dreamers & movers for Human Good, which is not Venture Capitalism, but Venture Socialism, or VS.
Paul Wolborsky
Blind Web Developer & Inventor of the Athena Tree
https://bsky.app/profile/blindcoder.bsky.social
No. Became more of a Ponzi scheme when BCs required growth and spreed not to just raise valuations faster, but to raise new funds off the speed from those other companies from the current fund. House of cards not based on building contrarian world changing companies, but pattern follow the crowd FOMO matching that backed scooters as the next “thing”