Limited Partners, much like VCs searching for outlier founders, are often looking for fund managers who are "a little off." They value investors who think differently and don't follow the consensus, as this non-traditional approach is seen as the path to generating outsized returns.

The most successful venture investors share two key traits: they originate investments from a first-principles or contrarian standpoint, and they possess the conviction to concentrate significant capital into their winning portfolio companies as they emerge.

Given the power-law dynamics of venture returns and the difficulty of predicting winners, a viable LP strategy is to participate in every co-investment offered by trusted GPs. This portfolio approach increases the odds of capturing one of the few breakout companies that drive all returns.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, deep sector expertise can be a liability in venture capital. VC firm Felicis found that none of its 53 unicorn investments were led by an expert in that specific sector. Experts can be anchored to orthodox thinking, while generalists are better able to recognize and back disruptive, first-principles approaches.

The days of the successful private equity generalist are over. Limited Partners (LPs) now demand deep, specific expertise. A firm claiming to specialize in multiple, disparate sectors is seen as lacking true differentiation and focus—a strategy that may have worked a decade ago but fails in today's competitive market.

The fund-of-funds model, often seen as outdated, finds a modern edge by focusing on small, emerging VC managers. These funds offer the highest potential returns but are difficult for most LPs to source, evaluate, and access. This creates a specialized niche for fund-of-funds that can navigate this opaque market segment effectively.

Traditional VCs are constrained by the need for every investment to potentially return the entire fund. This creates "scope paralysis," preventing them from investing in smaller, niche markets that could be highly profitable but don't fit the unicorn model.

In venture capital, mid-sized generalist funds struggle to compete. They lack the scale and network of large generalists and the deep expertise of small specialists. This 'death of the middle' makes it difficult for them to win the best, most competitive deals against firms that can offer either breadth or depth.

The venture capital landscape is bifurcating. Large, multi-stage funds leverage scale and network, while small, boutique funds win with deep domain expertise. Mid-sized generalist funds lack a clear competitive edge and risk getting squeezed out by these two dominant models.