True alpha in venture capital is found at the extremes. It's either in being a "market maker" at the earliest stages by shaping a raw idea, or by writing massive, late-stage checks where few can compete. The competitive, crowded middle-stages offer less opportunity for outsized returns.
Related Insights
Contrary to the 'get in early' mantra, the certainty of a 3-5x return on a category-defining company like Databricks can be a more attractive investment than a high-risk seed deal. The time and risk-adjusted returns for late-stage winners are often superior.
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.
To win the best pre-seed deals, investors should engage high-potential talent during their 'founder curious' phase, long before a formal fundraise. The real competition is guiding them toward conviction on their own timeline, not battling other VCs for a term sheet later.
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.
The most dangerous venture stage is the "breakout" middle ground ($500M-$2B valuations). This segment is flooded with capital, leading firms to write large checks into companies that may not have durable product-market fit. This creates a high risk of capital loss, as companies are capitalized as if they are already proven winners.
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.
Competing to be a founder's "first call" is a crowded, zero-sum game. A more effective strategy is to be the "second call"—the specialist a founder turns to for a specific, difficult problem after consulting their lead investor. This positioning is more scalable, collaborative, and allows for differentiated value-add.
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.
In today's market, 90% of VCs chase signals, while the top 10% (like Sequoia or Founders Fund) *are* the signal. Their investment creates a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic, attracting the best talent, customers, and follow-on capital to their portfolio companies.
Small, dedicated venture funds compete against large, price-insensitive firms by sourcing founders *before* they become mainstream. They find an edge in niche, high-signal communities like the Thiel Fellowship interviewing committee or curated groups of technical talent. This allows them to identify and invest in elite founders at inception, avoiding bidding wars and market noise.
