Benchmark learned that large funds create an "overhang of misfit" with the practice of early-stage investing. The pressure to deploy massive capital volumes conflicts with the hands-on, shoulder-to-shoulder partnership that early founders need, leading to less joy and purpose.

Related Insights

More capital isn't always better. An excess of funding can lead to a lack of focus, wasteful spending, and a reluctance to make tough choices—a form of moral hazard. It's crucial to match the amount of capital to a founder's ability to deploy it effectively without losing discipline.

Large, multi-stage funds can pay any price for seed rounds because the check size is immaterial to their fund's success. They view seed investments not on their own return potential, but as an option to secure pro-rata rights in future, massive growth rounds.

Benchmark Partner Ev Randall argues that large, multi-billion dollar VC funds struggle to generate the high-multiple returns (e.g., 5x net) that LPs seek from venture capital. He claims the sheer size of these funds "defies the laws of physics," positioning smaller, more constrained funds like Benchmark as better able to deliver traditional venture-like returns.

The abundance of capital has shifted the VC mindset from serving founders over a decade to simply "winning" the next hot deal. This transactional approach is misaligned with what founders truly need: a committed, long-term partner who puts the company first.

While capital is necessary, an overabundance is dangerous. Large secondaries can make founders comfortable and misaligned with investors. Excessive primary capital leads to bloat, unfocused strategy, and removes the pressure that drives invention. This moral hazard often leads to worse outcomes than being capital-constrained.

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.

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.

Benchmark intentionally remains a small firm with a small capital base. They acknowledge this isn't the most financially lucrative strategy for the partners but believe it maximizes their professional happiness and ensures deep, aligned partnerships with early-stage founders.

The institutionalization of venture capital as a career path changes investor incentives. At large funds, individuals may be motivated to join hyped deals with well-known founders to advance their careers, rather than taking on the personal risk of backing a contrarian idea with higher return potential.

Separating investment teams by stage (seed, growth, public) creates misaligned incentives and arbitrary knowledge silos. A unified, multi-stage team can focus only on the handful of companies that truly matter, follow them across their entire lifecycle, and "never miss" an opportunity, even if the entry point changes.