The market has shifted beyond a simple AI vs. non-AI debate. The only metric that matters for private companies is extreme growth velocity. Startups demonstrating anything less are considered unfundable, creating a stark divide in the venture landscape.
Related Insights
A market bifurcation is underway where investors prioritize AI startups with extreme growth rates over traditional SaaS companies. This creates a "changing of the guard," forcing established SaaS players to adopt AI aggressively or risk being devalued as legacy assets, while AI-native firms command premium valuations.
The VC landscape has split into two extremes. A few elite firms and sovereign wealth funds are funding mega-rounds for about 20-30 top AI companies, while the broader ecosystem of seed funds, Series A specialists, and new managers is getting crushed by a lack of capital and liquidity.
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.
Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia describes a shift in their investment thesis for the AI era. They are now more likely to back young, "high-velocity" founders who "run through walls to win" over those with traditional domain expertise. Sheer speed, storytelling, and determination are becoming more critical selection criteria.
In a market with extreme growth outliers, the opportunity cost of supporting a slower-moving company is immense. This pressure causes both investors and founders to quit on ventures much earlier, seeking to redeploy capital and time into potential breakout hits.
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.
Venture capitalists may value a solid $15M revenue company at zero. Their model is not built on backing good businesses, but on funding 'upside options'—companies with the potential for explosive, outlier growth, even if they are currently unprofitable.
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.
In the AI era, technology moats are shrinking as tools become commoditized. Consequently, early-stage investors increasingly prioritize the founding team itself, specifically their execution velocity and ability to leverage AI, over any specific technical advantage.
AI startups' explosive growth ($1M to $100M ARR in 2 years) will make venture's power law even more extreme. LPs may need a new evaluation model, underwriting VCs across "bundles of three funds" where they expect two modest performers (e.g., 1.5x) and one massive outlier (10x) to drive overall returns.
