Thrive's data shows the number of companies reaching $100B+ valuation grew faster last decade than those reaching $10B. This suggests it's a higher-probability bet to identify future mega-winners from an established pool of large companies than to pick breakout unicorns from a much larger, riskier field of thousands.
Related Insights
Contrary to the 'get in early' mantra, the certainty of a 3-5x return on a category-defining company like Databricks can be a more attractive investment than a high-risk seed deal. The time and risk-adjusted returns for late-stage winners are often superior.
To write a billion-dollar check, a firm needs "dogmatic conviction." Thrive Capital achieves this through extremely long diligence and relationship-building periods, often spanning years. This deep familiarity, like their 10-year relationship with Stripe before a major investment, is the foundation for making huge, concentrated bets.
Top growth investors deliberately allocate more of their diligence effort to understanding and underwriting massive upside scenarios (10x+ returns) rather than concentrating on mitigating potential downside. The power-law nature of venture returns makes this a rational focus for generating exceptional performance.
Acknowledging venture capital's power-law returns makes winner-picking nearly impossible. Vested's quantitative model doesn't try. Instead, it identifies the top quintile of all startups to create a high-potential "pond." The strategy is then to achieve broad diversification within this pre-qualified group, ensuring they capture the eventual outliers.
The standard VC heuristic—that each investment must potentially return the entire fund—is strained by hyper-valuations. For a company raising at ~$200M, a typical fund needs a 60x return, meaning a $12 billion exit is the minimum for the investment to be a success, not a grand slam.
The true differentiator for top-tier companies isn't their ability to attract investors, but how efficiently they convert invested capital into high-margin, high-growth revenue. This 'capital efficiency' is the key metric Karmel Capital uses to identify elite performers among a universe of well-funded businesses.
Aggregate venture capital investment figures are misleading. The market is becoming bimodal: a handful of elite AI companies absorb a disproportionate share of capital, while the vast majority of other startups, including 900+ unicorns, face a tougher fundraising and exit environment.
The venture capital return model has shifted so dramatically that even some multi-billion-dollar exits are insufficient. This forces VCs to screen for 'immortal' founders capable of building $10B+ companies from inception, making traditionally solid businesses run by 'mortal founders' increasingly uninvestable by top funds.
The firm targets markets structured like the famous movie scene: first place wins big, second gets little, and third fails. They believe most tech markets, even B2B SaaS without network effects, concentrate value in the #1 player, making leadership essential for outsized returns.
Conventional venture capital wisdom of 'winner-take-all' may not apply to AI applications. The market is expanding so rapidly that it can sustain multiple, fast-growing, highly valuable companies, each capturing a significant niche. For VCs, this means huge returns don't necessarily require backing a monopoly.
