The optimal strategy for solo VCs is to resist the urge to scale fund size. Instead, they should raise smaller funds (sub-$50M) and deploy them on faster cycles (e.g., every 18 months). This approach aligns with LP constraints, avoids competition with larger firms, and enables the high portfolio velocity (80+ companies) needed for the solo GP model to work.

Due to VC deal mechanics like liquidation preferences, a founder's take-home pay can be higher from a smaller, earlier acquisition. A $25M all-cash deal today might be more valuable to the founding team than a $125M exit a few years later after a significant VC round.

Micah Rosenbloom of Founder Collective argues that keeping fund sizes small is a strategic choice. It aligns the firm with founders by making smaller, life-changing exits viable, maintaining founder optionality, and focusing on multiples rather than management fees from a large AUM.

In an environment of large, multi-stage funds, smaller firms differentiate by providing stable, long-term partner relationships and highly specialized networks. This appeals to founders who value dedicated support over just a large check and high valuation from a firm with high employee turnover.

A smaller fund size enables investments in seemingly niche but potentially lucrative sectors, such as software for dental labs. A larger fund would have to pass on such a deal, not because the founder is weak, but because the potential exit isn't large enough to satisfy their fund return model.

Solo GP Zal Bilimoria intentionally keeps his fund size small and consistent at $50 million. This disciplined strategy is designed so that achieving a 5% stake in a billion-dollar company at exit would generate a $50 million return, covering the entire fund and ensuring strong performance from a single breakout investment.

Benchmark intentionally remains a small firm with a small capital base. They acknowledge this isn't the most financially lucrative strategy for the partners but believe it maximizes their professional happiness and ensures deep, aligned partnerships with early-stage founders.

A $500M-$750M exit can be a life-changing event for a founder but is often a rounding error for a billion-dollar fund. This creates a fundamental misalignment where VCs may push founders to take on unnecessary risk and forgo fantastic personal and business outcomes.

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.