Series A is a brutal competition where top-tier firms have an insurmountable advantage. Their brand and network are so powerful that if a smaller fund wins a competitive Series A deal against them, it’s a strong negative signal that the top firms passed for a reason.

Related Insights

Trying to win a competitive Series A against a firm like Sequoia is nearly impossible for a smaller fund. Top firms leverage an overwhelming arsenal of social proof, including board seats at the world's most valuable companies and references from iconic founders, creating an insurmountable competitive moat.

Mega-funds can justify paying "stupid prices" at the seed stage because they aren't underwriting a seed-stage return. Instead, they are buying an option on the next, much larger round where they'll deploy real capital. This allows them to outbid smaller funds who need to generate returns from the initial investment itself.

Contrary to the belief that number two players can be viable, most tech markets are winner-take-all. The market leader captures the vast majority of economic value, making investments in second or third-place companies extremely risky.

Applying Conway's Law to venture, a firm's strategy is dictated by its fund size and team structure. A $7B fund must participate in mega-rounds to deploy capital effectively, while a smaller fund like Benchmark is structured to pursue astronomical money-on-money returns from earlier stages, making mega-deals strategically illogical.

The leadership change at Sequoia, arguably the world's top venture firm, is a strong indicator of the intense pressure the entire VC industry faces. It reflects a fear of falling behind in the AI race and the brutal reality that even the best are struggling to adapt to the new competitive landscape.

VCs at the highest level don't just write checks; they fundamentally reset a founder's aspirations. By placing a startup in the lineage of giants like Google and Oracle, they shift the goal from building a big business to creating a generational company.

Seed-focused funds have a powerful, non-obvious advantage over multi-stage giants: incentive alignment. A seed fund's goal is to maximize the next round's valuation for the founder. A multi-stage firm, hoping to lead the next round themselves, is implicitly motivated to keep that valuation lower, creating a conflict of interest.

To win highly sought-after deals, growth investors must build relationships years in advance. This involves providing tangible help with hiring, customer introductions, and strategic advice, effectively acting as an investor long before deploying capital.

While massive "kingmaking" funding rounds can accelerate growth, they don't guarantee victory. A superior product can still triumph over a capital-rich but less-efficient competitor, as seen in the DoorDash vs. Uber Eats battle. Capital can create inefficiency and unforced errors.

Seed funds can win deals against multistage giants by highlighting the inherent conflict of interest. A seed-only investor is fully aligned with the founder to maximize the Series A valuation, whereas a multistage investor may want a lower price for their own follow-on investment.

Winning a Series A Against Sequoia Means You've Already Lost | RiffOn