Even if top venture outcomes reach $20B, there are only about four such deals annually. Glenn Solomon argues a mega-fund would need to win all of them and own a significant stake just to break even, making the math for outsized returns nearly impossible.

Large, multi-stage funds can pay any price for seed rounds because the check size is immaterial to their fund's success. They view seed investments not on their own return potential, but as an option to secure pro-rata rights in future, massive growth rounds.

As venture capital firms scale to manage billions, their business model shifts from the 'artisan craft' of early-stage investing to an industrial process of asset gathering. This makes it difficult to focus on small, early opportunities and will likely result in IRRs that are no better than the industry average.

Benchmark Partner Ev Randall argues that large, multi-billion dollar VC funds struggle to generate the high-multiple returns (e.g., 5x net) that LPs seek from venture capital. He claims the sheer size of these funds "defies the laws of physics," positioning smaller, more constrained funds like Benchmark as better able to deliver traditional venture-like returns.

The primary risk to a VC fund's performance isn't its absolute size but rather a dramatic increase (e.g., doubling) from one fund to the next. This forces firms to change their strategy and write larger checks than their conviction muscle is built for.

The venture capital model is incentivized for size, not performance. LPs find it easier to deploy capital into large funds, and a GP of a $5B fund returning 1.01x earns more than a GP of a $500M fund returning 3x. This pressures entrepreneurs to accept massive checks at inflated valuations, distorting the market and potentially harming the company.

Glenn Solomon argues against the trend of asset aggregation, stating that fund size must be determined by the firm's investment strategy. A strategy of making concentrated, early-stage bets naturally dictates a smaller fund size, while letting AUM demand dictate size corrupts the model.

Contrary to the belief that smaller VC funds generate higher multiples, a16z's data shows their larger funds can outperform. This is driven by the massive expansion of private markets, where significant value is now created in later growth stages (Series C and beyond).

Bill Maris argues that smaller funds (<$750M) consistently outperform larger ones due to simple math. A multi-billion-dollar fund needs to return a value that can exceed the entire annual VC-backed exit market to achieve a 3x return. Smaller funds have more achievable targets and can offer founders more focused support.