Damian Brychcy

2009: The financial crisis had crushed fundraising. Barely any new capital went into venture funds. Yet the vintages from those years went on to deliver some of the strongest returns in history. Fast forward to today (2024/2025): Venture capital fundraising is at its lowest point in more than a decade. What does that mean? - ⁠Less money will be available to startups over the next years - The bar for raising capital goes up again: quality matters - ⁠Entry valuations will reset to saner levels --> Funds raised now are likely to outperform, just as history shows The paradox of venture: the best time to commit capital is exactly when most people hesitate. Investors (Limited Partners) should lean in now, not when the next boom makes it easy.

85

13 Comments

10 years ago, if you had $100M in ARR, $1B public enterprise valuation and strong top-line growth, you were likely going to IPO. Companies went public with less maturity, and the market was hungry for growth stories. Today, the bar is closer to $500M+ ARR, $7.5B+ public enterprise valuation, and you need to be growing 30%+ YoY. In addition, public investors expect significant float when only ~10% of shares are sold at the IPO, which means raising $750M–$1B at the offering. And they want to see the potential for that company to grow toward $100B in enterprise value. With so much private capital available, companies like Stripe and Databricks have delayed going public (while in many ways, running like a publicly traded company). But these are outliers IMO. Going public is still the north star for any company. You gain stronger enterprise credibility, immediate market feedback, and a bigger brand presence by being a public company. And importantly, public companies must be more efficient and transparent, having to report performance numbers to the government, shareholders, and board members. If you have the right ingredients, including predictable revenues, operational discipline, and durable growth at scale, you should no doubt go public. That’s what separates companies that are simply big from those that are truly Companies of Consequence.

258

15 Comments

Turns Out… My Fund LP Portfolio Beat My Direct Portfolio 😅 Maybe I’m not a bad investor — maybe FoFs aren’t the fallacy we think they are. I’ve been reading several great pieces lately and reflecting on a touchy subject: venture funds of funds (FoFs). Hamilton Lane has hammered this home for years: venture isn’t really an “asset class” — it’s an access class 🚪. • 📊 VC has the widest dispersion in private markets. • ⏳ That dispersion hasn’t narrowed, even as VC scaled — the power law still rules. • 📉 Drawdowns cut deeper here than anywhere else. Translation: pick the right managers and you look like a genius; miss them and you look… well, like me on some of my direct deals 🙃. That’s why the Pattern Ventures benchmarking caught my eye: across 2005–2019 vintages, FoFs (yes, even with “double fees”) actually: ✨ Beat direct VC in the median quartile in 14/15 vintages (+0.68x TVPI). ✨ Outperformed the bottom quartile every single time (+0.89x) — and never fell below 1x. ✨ Smoothed returns, with dispersion nearly halved (0.58x vs. 1.21x). Confession time: even in my own portfolio, my LP fund investments have outperformed my direct ones. Not sure if that makes me a bad direct investor 😅 … or just a better FoF LP. Either way, it taught me something about where my real portfolio chops lie. In hedge funds, double fees kill. In venture, access math beats fee math. So the real question for LPs isn’t: “Do we avoid FoFs?” It’s: Do we build selection capability — or buy it? Because in venture, average is the most dangerous place to hide.🚫 🔖 David Dug Skylar Anurag John Samir #VentureCapital #PrivateMarkets #FundofFunds #LPInsights #VCInvesting #PowerLaw #Dispersion #InstitutionalInvesting Asilica | Redshift Capital | Allocate

118

9 Comments

5 MAJOR Changes Coming to Fundraising in 2025! The fundraising is evolving fast. If you're still relying on pitch decks and "warm intros" alone...you're already behind. Here are 5 shifts we’re seeing across 1,500+ founders we’ve supported: 1. Investors want data, not dreams. A clear, dynamic forecast is becoming more powerful than a flashy deck. 2. Runway is under a microscope. VCs want proof your money won’t vanish in 6 months. Generic headcount math doesn't work. 3. Founder clarity beats charisma. Confidence backed by numbers > storytelling without substance. 4. Scenario planning is the new secret weapon. You need to show what happens if things go wrong. Or right. 5. Raising without a model = Red Flag Every investor has seen a pretty deck. Few have seen founders walk in with investor-ready numbers. Bottom line: 2025 fundraising will reward founders who are sharp, transparent, and financially clear. If you're planning a raise soon, start with the one thing most founders skip👇 A model that actually builds trust. Want help getting yours in shape? Book a free strategy call with our team here → https://lnkd.in/ePXBVpiE P.S. We helped Wasted earth raise $5M with a model we built together. Happy to show you how it works.

84

17 Comments

Firstly, this isn't a post about Europe vs US. They're different beasts at different stages of development… However, as a European VC, it's critical to be connected to the US VC market. If you are, on average, you'll get bigger markups for your portfolio by taking advantage of the UK/US arbitrage among other things. Two examples of this are Lawhive and StackOne from our portfolio. Both have founders who've moved to the US and both have raised from GV (Google Ventures) with deep US ties of course. Same with companies like Mimica (Khosla Ventures), Carwow (Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel) and many more. You need to be able to pick the phone up to tier 1 US VCs and get them to meet your portfolio. So when Adam Shuaib, PhD, Millan Suri and I went to SF a few weeks back, we tried to cover as much ground as we could, meeting about 40 of the tier 1 US funds like Founders Fund, Greenoaks, Sequoia Capital, Thrive Capital, Andreessen Horowitz…. It takes time to build this network but the rewards are great. As you can see, we also went surfing.

74

2 Comments

I’ve backed and advised dozens of early-stage businesses. A few things I wish more investors spoke about openly: 1️⃣ Founder-market fit matters more than anything. I used to get caught up in slick decks and glossy projections. Now, I back the founder who lives the problem they’re solving. If they’ve been in the weeds, felt the pain, and care enough to fix it - that’s my signal. 2️⃣ Capital discipline is underrated. Big raises don’t mean big businesses. The best founders I’ve worked with are surgical with spend, even when the bank balance is healthy. A lean mindset builds resilience and makes every penny work harder. 3️⃣ Hype is not a strategy. If the market’s hot, great. But I’ve seen too many teams chase trends rather than build for real-world needs. I now back founders who build for utility before virality. 4️⃣ Great investors don’t interrogate - they collaborate. I’ve invested in enough successes to know: founders don’t need more pressure. They need perspective. The most effective investors are honest, low-ego, and always make space for the hard conversations. 5️⃣ Network = oxygen. Access can change a founder’s trajectory. I’ve seen a single introduction unlock funding, press, distribution, etc. That’s why I try to open doors wherever I can - especially for those who traditionally wouldn’t otherwise have access to the high table. — Bonus tip: The older I get, the more I believe: your reputation is the real portfolio. Build a reputation that precedes you and will outlive you. That’s what I’m trying to do anyway.

144

51 Comments