A massive valuation for a "seed" round can be misleading. Often, insiders have participated in several unannounced, cheaper tranches. The headline number is just the final, most expensive tier, used to create FOMO and set a high watermark for new investors.

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.

Y Combinator's model pushes companies to raise at high valuations, often bypassing traditional seed rounds. Simultaneously, mega-funds cherry-pick the most proven founders at prices seed funds cannot compete with. This leaves traditional seed funds fighting for a narrowing and less attractive middle ground.

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.

The seed investing landscape isn't just expanding; it's actively replacing its previous generation. Legacy boutique seed firms are being squeezed by large multistage funds and new emerging managers, implying a VC's relevance has a 10-15 year cycle before a new cohort takes over.

Investors like Stacy Brown-Philpot and Aileen Lee now expect founders to demonstrate a clear, rapid path to massive scale early on. The old assumption that the next funding round would solve for scalability is gone; proof is required upfront.

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.

Seed funds that primarily act as a supply chain for Series A investors—optimizing for quick markups rather than fundamental value—are failing. This 'factory model' pushes them into the hyper-competitive 'white hot center' of the market, where deals are priced to perfection and outlier returns are rare.

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.