Casado argues that while VCs preach non-consensus investing, later-stage funding rounds become increasingly consensus-driven as check sizes grow. Startups that are too far off-consensus risk being unable to secure the necessary follow-on capital to survive and scale.

Related Insights

Venture capitalists thrive by adopting one of two distinct personas: the "in the flow" consensus-driver focused on speed and connections, or the "out of the flow" contrarian focused on deep, isolated work. Attempting to straddle both paths leads to failure.

The current fundraising environment is the most binary in recent memory. Startups with the "right" narrative—AI-native, elite incubator pedigree, explosive growth—get funded easily. Companies with solid but non-hype metrics, like classic SaaS growers, are finding it nearly impossible to raise capital. The middle market has vanished.

Successful concentration isn't just about doubling down on winners. It's equally about avoiding the dispersion of capital and attention. This means resisting the industry bias to automatically do a pro-rata investment in a company just because another VC offered a higher valuation.

The primary risk to a VC fund's performance isn't its absolute size but rather a dramatic increase (e.g., doubling) from one fund to the next. This forces firms to change their strategy and write larger checks than their conviction muscle is built for.

While multi-stage funds offer deep pockets, securing a new lead investor for later rounds is often strategically better. It provides external validation of the company's valuation, brings fresh perspectives to the board, and adds another powerful, committed firm to the cap table, mitigating signaling risk from the inside investor.

Sequoia operates on a consensus model where every partner must agree for an investment to proceed. A single "no" vote can kill a deal. This high-stakes process forces deep conviction, though partners can be convinced to override their own negative intuition if the rest of the team is overwhelmingly positive.

Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.

'Gifted TVPI' comes from consensus deals with pedigreed founders who easily raise follow-on capital. 'Earned TVPI' comes from non-consensus founders whose strong metrics eventually prove out the investment. A healthy early-stage portfolio requires a deliberate balance of both.

A frequent conflict arises between cautious VCs who advise raising excess capital and optimistic founders who underestimate their needs. This misalignment often leads to companies running out of money, a preventable failure mode that veteran VCs have seen repeat for decades, especially when capital is tight.

The founder advises against always pursuing the highest valuation, noting it can lead to immense pressure and difficulties in subsequent rounds if the market normalizes. Prioritizing investor chemistry and a fair, responsible valuation is a more sustainable long-term strategy.