Podcasts about dpi

Le DPI-A ou diagnostic préimplantatoire pour aneuploïdie n'est pas encore autorisé en France, alors qu'il l'est dans de nombreux pays voisins comme l'Espagne, la Belgique, la Suisse ou le Portugal. De plus en plus de patientes françaises, de couples, se déplacent à l'étranger pour pouvoir y accéder dans le cadre d'une FIV.Dans cet épisode, je vous explique concrètement ce qu'est le DPI-A, comment il se déroule, pour qui il est indiqué, et ce qu'il peut et ne peut pas vous apporter dans votre parcours PMA.

Dr. Pramod Varma, chief architect of Aadhaar, UPI, and the India Stack, and co-founder of Networks for Humanity, joins host Tushar Shetty to discuss the design philosophy and the next stages of India's Digital Public Infrastructure.We discuss the core principles that distinguish the India Stack from platform models like Alipay and PayPal, the Account Aggregator framework's consent architecture and its relationship to data protection regimes like the GDPR, the extension of DPI logic to business identity and flow-based lending through the Unified Lending Interface, the role of AI as both a driver of demand for DPI foundations and an opportunity for, the case for DPI as a replicable global model for the democratization of technology.For more in-depth analysis on South Asia, subscribe to the Beyond the Indus podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or follow us on YouTube for video episodes.

Math doesn't have to be intimidating, especially when it's the kind that helps fund companies and move science forward. In this episode, host Elaine Hamm, PhD, is joined by Isaiah Reeves, PhD, Biomedical Analyst at Solas BioVentures, for a practical and approachable deep dive into venture math. Drawing on his background as a scientist turned investor, Isaiah breaks down the core financial concepts every biotech founder should understand: from valuations and dilution to IRR, cap tables, and deal terms. The conversation offers real-world guidance for navigating fundraising, choosing the right partners, and avoiding common pitfalls that can derail long-term value creation. In this episode, you'll learn: How venture capitalists think about valuations, dilution, and returns, and why fully diluted post-money matters. Key metrics like IRR and DPI, and how they influence investment decisions and fund performance. Common deal terms and cap table “red flags” founders should watch out for as they raise capital. Tune in to learn how understanding venture math can help founders make smarter funding decisions, protect long-term value, and build biotech companies positioned for sustainable growth and impact. Links: Connect with Isaiah Reeves, PhD, and check out Solas BioVentures. Connect with Elaine Hamm, PhD, and learn about Tulane Medicine Business Development and the School of Medicine, as well as Cadenza Bio. Connect with Josh Eckelberry, MBA, and Mark Corrigan, MD. Check out the books The Go-Giver and Venture Deals. Check out the podcasts STAT, Biotech Hangout, and 20VC. Check out our previous episodes on Networking as an Introvert and Solas BioVentures with Travis Manasco. Connect with Ian McLachlan, BIO from the BAYOU producer. Learn more about BIO from the BAYOU - the podcast. Bio from the Bayou is a podcast that explores biotech innovation, business development, and healthcare outcomes in New Orleans & The Gulf South, connecting biotech companies, investors, and key opinion leaders to advance medicine, technology, and startup opportunities in the region.

rsync's founder came back, patched real security bugs with AI help, and triggered an open source meltdown. Plus, two more projects reject AI-generated code as the community's newest fault line cracks wide open.Sponsored By:Jupiter Party Annual Membership: Put your support on automatic with our annual plan, and get one month of membership for free!Managed Nebula: Meet Managed Nebula from Defined Networking. A decentralized VPN built on the open-source Nebula platform that we love.Support LINUX UnpluggedLinks:ConnecTen Internet — Get $35 off your order total with Jupiter35

Send us Fan MailLEARN THE CAPITAL RAISING STRATEGIES AND FRAMEWORKS used by alternative asset professionals: go.fundraisecapital.coThis episode of Making Billions with Ryan Miller & Aman Verjee delivers the secondary market playbook that gives managers a structural advantage over every fund ignoring this shift.How do venture secondaries solve LP liquidity problems in 2026? Former PayPal and eBay CFO Aman Verjee reveals the exact system for buying into elite VC deals at 70% below market value. Fund managers face a quiet crisis: DPI timelines stretching 10-12 years while LPs demand exits far sooner. What separates fund managers who retain LP trust from those who lose it? Verjee breaks down how to audit your fund structure today, identify liquidity gaps before they become emergencies, and build relationships with secondary buyers years before you need them. He shares the due diligence framework used to evaluate SpaceX, Anthropic, and Canva positions when information is limited and markets are opaque.[THE HOST]: Ryan Miller is a fund manager, capital strategist, and former CFO turned angel investor in technology and energy. He is the founder of Fund Raise Capital and Aequor Capital Partners, and has mentored over 1,000 fund managers across private equity, private credit, venture capital, real estate, and alternative assets globally.[THE GUEST]: Aman Verjee has more than 20 years of financial and operational experience from both private and public technology companies. He has been a member of the management teams at some of the most successful companies in the world, including PayPal, eBay, 500 Startups and Sonos. His new book, A BRIEF HISTORY OF FINANCIAL BUBBLES, comes out in December.Subscribe on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTOe79EXLDsROQ0z3YLnu1QQConnect with Ryan Miller:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rcmiller1/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ryanmilleroffical/X: https://x.com/_MakingBillionsWebsite: https://making-billions.com/Support the showSupport the showDISCLAIMER: This podcast is for entertainment and general informational purposes only — not legal, financial, tax, or investment advice. Nothing herein constitutes a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security or investment product. Past performance does not indicate future results. Always consult qualified legal, financial, and tax professionals before making any investment decision. NAME NOTICE: "Making Billions with Ryan Miller" reflects the profile and aspirations of guests featured — it is not a promise, projection, guarantee, or representation of any financial result, income, or outcome for any listener, viewer, or reader. Most individuals who consume this content do not raise any particular amount of capital, and many achieve no financial result whatsoever. "Fund Raise Capital" is a brand identifier only — it is not a promise, guarantee, or representation that any member, subscriber, or listener will raise capital, attract investors, or achieve any financial or professional outcome. This show does not constitute a business opportunity, franchise, investment program, or offer of any product or service of any kind. No part of this show should be construed as a solicitation for investment in any way. Guest views are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the show or host. Host and/or guests may hold positions in assets discussed. This episode may contain paid sponsorships, advertisements, or endorsements. Sponsored content is identified where...

The post-WW2 world order is dead. The UN doesn't work. The WTO can't function. Multilateralism has collapsed. And the world is now in a dangerous "interregnum" — a period of fragmentation, conflict, and competing alliances where every country is fighting to shape what comes next. So what does this mean for India? In this conversation with Roshan Cariappa, Ambassador Dr. Mohan Kumar — Former Indian Ambassador to France and Bahrain, India's lead negotiator at the WTO/GATT for nearly a decade, Professor of Diplomatic Practice at OP Jindal Global University, and Chairman of RIS — takes us inside the rooms where India's biggest global negotiations actually happen. This is not theory. This is a 40-year practitioner explaining how it really works. We cover: - Why the liberal world order has "certainly ended" - The non-polar world and India's multi-alignment strategy - "No light at the end of the tunnel" — his honest diagnosis - Can India be a Vishwa Guru? The truth about DPI and AI - The Poverty Veto — why 800M on dole holds India back - What really happens behind closed doors in negotiations - His toughest negotiations: TRIPS Doha and Paris climate - The Nvidia comparison — India's economy = one company - Why India can't have a confrontation with China - Trump-XI "bilateral strategic stability" and India - Jaishankar's "three mutuals" approach with China ⏱️ TIMESTAMPS 00:00 Cold open: The world order is dead 00:54 Are we witnessing the collapse of the post-Cold War order? 02:13 "The liberal international order has certainly ended" 03:42 What changed about globalization 05:05 Was it Trump — or structural factors? 07:00 The "non-polar" world explained 08:13 India's multi-alignment strategy 11:04 Fragmentation of the world order 12:08 "I've never seen this deficit of cooperation in 40 years" 13:25 "There is no light at the end of the tunnel" 14:39 Can India step up as Vishwa Guru? 16:27 "800 million on dole is dragging India down" 17:52 India's 1991 redux moment — bite the bullet 20:26 Multilateralism has collapsed — UN and WTO 21:11 The huge gap between US, China and the rest 23:36 What actually happens behind closed doors 25:35 The brief, the non-negotiables, the tradeables 27:21 The Poverty Veto — Mohan's original concept 31:37 The toughest negotiation: TRIPS in Doha (2001) 33:25 The Paris climate accords — India's red lines 36:20 Is there bipartisan consensus on foreign policy? 38:14 Pranab Mukherjee's all-party meeting idea 40:08 What makes an effective negotiator? 44:33 Why "anyone can become Ambassador overnight" is wrong 45:07 Should India look beyond the IFS cadre? 49:00 Why India can't have a Jared Kushner 49:26 40 years of negotiation — how India's leverage has grown 51:32 India = the size of Nvidia ($4 trillion comparison) 53:00 "9-10% growth for 10 years — the world will be at your feet" 58:43 The final question — US-China dynamics 1:00:00 Trump-XI "bilateral strategic stability" 1:01:44 Why India can't have a confrontation with China 1:02:13 Jaishankar's "three mutuals" with China 1:03:13 Closing thoughts

In the May 2026 episode of 12:01 The Death Penalty in Context, DPI Managing Director Anne Holsinger speaks with Dr. Naomi Yavneh Klos, Dean of the Honors College at the University of New Mexico, and a prominent scholar of the Holocaust. Dr. Yavneh Klos is a founding member of the Jews Against Gassing Coalition, a New-Orleans area group formed to oppose the use of nitrogen gas as a method of execution in Louisiana. She joins DPI's podcast during Jewish American Heritage Month to discuss the historical ties between lethal gas executions and the use of gas as a tool of genocide during the Holocaust.

Pour ce nouvel épisode de Cœur de Mère, Malika reçoit Sandy Héribert, journaliste, animatrice et maman d'une petite fille.Depuis plusieurs années, Sandy partage son parcours de PMA et son combat contre l'infertilité secondaire : cette réalité encore peu connue qui touche des femmes déjà mères, mais qui rencontrent malgré tout de grandes difficultés lorsqu'elles souhaitent avoir un autre enfant.Dans cet échange, elle raconte l'attente, les traitements, les piqûres, les rendez-vous médicaux qui rythment le quotidien… mais aussi cette charge mentale permanente quand le désir d'agrandir sa famille prend toute la place.Sandy Heribert parle sans filtre de la PMA après 40 ans, du regard des autres, de la fatigue physique et émotionnelle, mais aussi de cette volonté de continuer tant qu'il reste une possibilité d'y croire.Elle explique aussi pourquoi elle a choisi de prendre la parole publiquement : pour rendre la PMA plus visible, casser les tabous et montrer l'envers du décor.Dans cet épisode, elle revient également sur le DPI (diagnostic préimplantatoire), encore interdit dans certaines situations en France, et dénonce le retard français sur ces questions. Elle explique en quoi cette avancée pourrait éviter de nombreuses fausses couches et épargner des années de souffrance à certaines femmes et certains couples.Enfin, il est aussi question de mémoire familiale, de transmission entre les femmes, et de ce que nos histoires intimes peuvent laisser dans le corps et dans la maternité.Dans cet épisode on parle de: • le choix d'interrompre une grossesse après la découverte d'une cardiopathie• l'infertilité secondaire• la PMA après 40 ans• vouloir agrandir sa famille• les traitements et le quotidien médical• la charge mentale liée à la PMA• l'attente entre chaque tentative• les œufs clairs et les fausses couches• le DPI et le retard de la France sur certaines pratiques médicales• le regard des autres• lever les tabous autour de l'infertilité• parler librement de la PMA• les différences entre la France et l'Espagne sur la PMA• la congélation des ovocytes• la mémoire cellulaire et la transmission entre les femmes• continuer d'y croire malgré les échecsUn épisode sur le désir d'enfant, la résilience, et sur toutes ces femmes qui continuent d'avancer, même quand le chemin devient plus long que prévu.Cœur de Mère, c'est un espace pour libérer la parole, alléger la culpabilité et se sentir moins seule.Un lieu où les histoires de femmes existent telles qu'elles sont : complexes, imparfaites et profondément humaines.Retrouvez Cœur de Mère sur Instagram @malikamenard14 et sur toutes les plateformes d'écoute.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

What happens when a classically trained musician from Juilliard ends up managing a $6 billion endowment? Today's episode of Origins explores exactly that journey - and what it reveals about how the best institutional investors really think.Nicholas Csicsko, Managing Director of Investments at Trinity Church NYC, brings a rare perspective to venture capital - one shaped by years of classical music training, a doctorate from Juilliard, and a decade building out one of America's most unique institutional investors. Trinity Church, founded in 1697 and endowed with 215 acres of Manhattan by Queen Anne in 1705, has grown its diversified investment pool to over $4 billion under Nicholas and CIO Meredith Jenkins.Together with hosts Nick & Beezer, the group digs into what institutional LPs really look for in venture managers, and what puts them off. From the tension between patient capital and the need for liquidity, to skepticism around sky-high private market valuations and the growing disconnect between private and public markets, Nicholas delivers the kind of frank, independent thinking that makes for a truly exceptional investor.Along the way, they explore the virtues of "cynical optimism" in early-stage investing, the institutional pressures that push LPs toward brand-name funds, and why Nicholas believes the best venture managers are those who know themselves deeply. From the challenges of scaling a venture firm to whether today's AI-driven capital surge is sustainable, this conversation offers a grounded, data-aware take on what it takes to build lasting returns in private markets.—Quotes"If you could put a bunch of investments into a line item that wasn't going to receive scrutiny, that left tail risk of something going to zero would probably be less. But if it's visible, it's discussable. You probably don't get fired for doing the next a16z fund, but you might be questioned if you take a flyer on someone who's up and coming. And so there's this institutional pressure towards, dare I say, conformity. But what's safe? What's perceived as safe?”"It's all fine and good that folks think they can raise and put more money to work, but I'm a little worried about where it's taking us because when open AI raises around 4x larger than any IPO in history, I kind of worry that we're creating a market that is not sustainable because ultimately there's not enough liquidity. There is a massive disconnect there.”"Knowing thyself is probably the number one thing I would attribute to all of the best investors I've met. And as they get older and more experienced, they know what they think they need more and more without stopping challenging their bias, without adding that new person to make them better.”—Time Stamps00:55 Meet Nicholas Csicsko, Managing Director, Investments at Trinity Wall Street02:24 Musician Mindset to Investing03:40 From Juilliard to Finance05:56 Trinity Church Endowment Story09:56 Building the Portfolio and Venture12:31 Institutional Risk and Conformity14:47 Private Public Market Disconnect18:57 DPI, TVPI and Secondaries20:41 Backing Off Radar Managers23:47 Cynical Optimism in Venture28:04 Building a VC Firm Team34:34 Where Venture Fits Today39:02 Too Much Capital and Liquidity?42:20 Closing and Next Episode—LinksConnect with the guest and hosts on LinkedIn!Nicholas CsicskoBeezer ClarksonNick ChirlsLearn more about:Trinity Church NYCAlfred P. Sloan FoundationOpenLPAsylum Ventures

Is it defensive pass interference… or just good football?In this segment, we break down a bang-bang passing play that splits the room. One official sees incidental contact, another sees a clear extension and DPI — so who's right? We dive into real-time vs. slow-motion judgment, what actually constitutes an advantage, and why “contact” alone isn't enough to throw a flag.Then things take a turn. The crew ends up with an OPI call that nobody saw coming, leading to confusion, chain crew movement, and a full-on breakdown in penalty enforcement mechanics. This becomes a masterclass in slowing the game down, communicating as a crew, and using every available resource to get the call right.We also touch on: Real-time vs. slow-motion officiating traps  When to pass on marginal PI  Crew communication and avoiding assumptions  Chain crew mechanics and preventing enforcement errors  Fixing mistakes without compounding them Perfect for high school football officials looking to sharpen judgment, improve crew dynamics, and manage chaotic situations with confidence… and much more.

Dairy farmers and farmers generally are facing significant challenges regarding their autumn sowing plans due to high fuel and fertiliser costs because of the war in the Middle East. Decisions need to be made by farmers to enable them to minimise the effects of this situation on pasture and herd production and ultimately financial performance. Nathan Jennings from the North Coast Local Land Services in NSW joins us to talk about some of the management options that farmers should consider related to urea application and sowing strategies for ryegrass in the current environment.Resources:Nathan Jennings' article “Ryegrass planting options considering fertiliser and fuel supply”MiniMilkBizThis podcast is an initiative of the NSW DPI Dairy Business Advisory Unit – further information and resources are available here - Dairy | Department of Primary IndustriesIt is brought to you in partnership the Hunter Local Land ServicesPlease share this podcast with your fellow farmers and colleagues and feel free to contact us with suggestions or comments via this email address thebusinessofdairy@gmail.comFurther NSW DPI Dairy channels to follow and subscribe to include:NSW DPI Dairy Facebook pageNSW DPI Dairy Newsletter - Connect with us | Department of Primary Industries Transcript hereProduced by Liam DriverThe information discussed in this podcast are for informative and educational purposes only and do not constitute advice. 

What's possible in the first few weeks of true transformation work? This episode answers that question with clarity—and proof.In this episode of the Coleman Associates Innovation Podcast, Amanda sits down with a powerhouse frontline team from a rural clinic in North Carolina that is already seeing remarkable results through the DPI™ (Dramatic Performance Improvement) Collaborative. In just two months, this small but mighty team has: Reduced No-Show rates consistently for 7 straight weeks  Increased productivity by 27% at the time this was recorded. Since then, the average increase is 33% from baseline.  Decreased cycle times overall by over 25%And they're just getting started.You'll hear directly from the people doing the work every day—provider Ashley, nurse Maddie (Madison), PSR Vanessa, and Peer Support Specialist Hannah, alongside Coleman coach Gabriel DelMuro. Together, they share what it really takes to turn intention into action, and action into measurable results.This episode pulls back the curtain on: What the early days of DPI™ actually look like on the ground  The specific challenges this team faced—and how they pushed through them  How aligning roles across the care team unlocks rapid improvement  The unexpected wins that come from doing this work the right way Most importantly, this conversation highlights a powerful truth: you don't have to wait months—or years—to see meaningful change.Whether you're a frontline team member actively in DPI™ or a leader wondering what's possible in your own organization—especially in rural settings—this episode offers both inspiration and practical takeaways you can act on immediately.Host: Amanda LaramieGuests: Ashley, Maddie, Vanessa, Hannah, and Coleman Coach, Gabriel DelMuro Thanks for listening! If you or someone you know should be interviewed for this show, send us an email. Check us out on: FacebookInstagramLinkedInOur WebsiteTikTokTwitterYouTube 

This week on Riding Unicorns, we're joined by Charlotte Palmer, Vice President of Venture Capital at Integra Global Advisors.Charlotte sits on the other side of the table as an LP, backing emerging venture funds globally. In this episode, she lifts the lid on how LPs actually evaluate VCs, what really matters beyond headline performance, and why many GPs still get fundraising wrong.We cover:• How LPs really underwrite venture funds and why early DPI is often misunderstood • What matters more than performance in the early years of a fund • Why access and ownership drive returns more than anything else • The reality of backing emerging managers and why smaller funds win • Team dynamics, attribution, and how LPs assess partners under the hood • Why fewer funds are getting backed and what's changed in the market • The shift in venture towards early-stage and how late-stage AI impacts LP strategy • Portfolio construction from an LP perspective and how diversification actually works • The role of co-investments and why LPs increasingly lean into them • How GPs can create urgency in fundraising and what actually cuts throughCharlotte also shares practical advice for GPs, including how to re-engage LPs, how to position a fund without strong DPI, and why most outreach fails to land.A clear, honest view from the LP side on what it takes to get backed and build a fund that lasts.

Most GPs walk into LP meetings ready to prove they have access to the best deals. Iren Reznikov, Partner at Vintage Investment Partners, barely cares. In this episode, Iren breaks down what sophisticated LPs actually underwrite, how Vintage's three-strategy flywheel creates an information edge across fund of funds, direct, and secondaries, and what the Anthropic cybersecurity move really means for investors in that sector.Vintage manages $4.5B across 23 years of venture investing across the US, Europe, and Israel. This is a masterclass in how the best capital allocators think.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe talk about -- Why access is table stakes — sophisticated LPs underwrite picking discipline, not just deal flow- The three-strategy flywheel — how fund of funds, direct, and secondaries compound into one information edge- AI-native teams, not just products — founders who don't rebuild their orgs for AI won't compete- Anthropic and the cybersecurity supercycle — cyber wins in up markets and down markets- Size is the enemy of returns — why a $4.5B platform still refuses to raise large vehiclesTimestamps:(00:00) - Preview(00:45) - Introduction to Iren Reznikov and Vintage Investment Partners(02:18) - What makes a fund stand out in the first 10 minutes?(03:01) - The importance of a consistent, durable strategy and a manager's "right to win"(05:38) - Biggest misconceptions GPs have about what LPs actually care about(06:21) - Why disciplined decision-making matters more than just access(08:26) - Access is table stakes; picking and winning capabilities are the real differentiators(09:48) - The evolution of VC value creation and its strategic importance(12:23) - How Vintage's three-strategy flywheel (Fund of Funds, Directs, Secondaries) creates an information edge(14:50) - The power of data and "business karma" in long-term investing(16:48) - How the investment committee handles disagreements and makes decisions(17:42) - The role of partner conviction and fundamentally proof-testing assumptions(19:30) - Balancing allocations between existing and new fund managers(22:26) - Differentiating a "double-down" manager from a solid performer(23:18) - Key indicators for doubling down: consistency, grit, and genuine founder relationships(26:30) - Where is the biggest edge today: fund investing or direct deals?(27:45) - The edge in direct investing: AI-native teams and founders willing to completely rebuild(30:45) - Leveraging an information edge in the burgeoning secondary market(31:41) - How founders and VCs should approach liquidity and secondaries today(34:45) - The impact of Anthropic's move into cybersecurity on the market(36:45) - Why cybersecurity budgets remain robust in all market conditions(38:38) - The convergence of the CIO and CISO roles driven by AI(40:35) - The market bifurcation between large multi-stage platforms and smaller specialized funds(42:05) - A founder's perspective: The importance of people over brand on a cap table(44:58) - How a Fund of Funds allocates capital when established funds raise mega-funds(46:20) - Vintage's disciplined approach to fund size and manager re-ups(49:25) - Managing the extended lifecycle and DPI in a Fund of Funds model(50:45) - Strategies for accelerating DPI: smaller fund vehicles and backing top-performing managers(54:00) - The ideal fund size for VCs that Vintage backs(55:14) - Start of the Rapid Fire Round(55:53) - Where to follow Vintage and Iren ReznikovLinks:Vintage Investment Partners - https://vintage-ip.com/Connect with Iren Reznikov - https://www.linkedin.com/in/iren-reznikov/Connect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.com#VentureCapital #FundOfFunds

Marlon Nichols is Co-Founder and Managing General Partner at Mac Venture Capital — a seed-stage firm that closed its first fund at $110M with institutional backing from day one and has grown to over $600M in AUM across three funds.In this episode, Marlon breaks down the fundraising arc that built Mac VC, the four-part founder framework he never compromises on, and the inside story of two portfolio companies — Pipe, which went from a $13M valuation to $2B in 18 months, and Gimlet Media, his early bet on the HBO of podcasting.Whether you're an emerging manager trying to crack institutional LP relationships, a founder wondering what top seed investors actually look for, or an LP benchmarking how the best funds are built — this conversation is essential listening.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe talk about -- Raising fund one with institutional LPs — no proof of concept fund required.- The four founder qualities Marlon never compromises on- Seed discipline at scale — how Mac VC stays true to stage at $600M+ AUM- What actually wins competitive deals at seed- Pipe: $13M valuation to $2B in 18 months — conviction, pivot, and recovery- Gimlet Media: betting on the HBO of podcasting before the category existed---Links:Mac Venture Capital - https://macventurecapital.com/Connect with Marlon Nichols - https://www.linkedin.com/in/marloncnicholsConnect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠Subscribe on Apple Podcasts - ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vc10x-investing-venture-capital-asset-management-private/id1632806986⁠Subscribe on Spotify - ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7F7KEhXNhTx1bKTBFgzv3k?si=WgQ4ozMiQJ-6nowj6wBgqQ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.comTimestamps:(00:00) - Preview(01:24) - Introduction to Marlon Nichols and MaC Venture Capital.(02:58) - MaC VC's journey from Fund 1 to Fund 3.(04:53) - How MaC VC attracted institutional LPs from its first fund.(06:48) - The fundraising experience for their recent $150M fund.(07:40) - Comparing the fundraising timelines for Fund 1, 2, and 3.(10:34) - The strategy behind fund sizing and when to stop raising.(12:59) - How LP expectations change from Fund 2 (TVPI) to Fund 3 (DPI).(14:46) - A deep dive into MaC VC's portfolio construction model.(17:17) - How Marlon's investment mindset has evolved with experience.(19:01) - The four essential qualities Marlon looks for in a founding team.(21:33) - How portfolio construction strategy changed from 50 companies to 36-40.(22:47) - Defining "winning" at a fund level: Why DPI is the ultimate goal.(24:31) - What wins allocations in competitive deals.(27:13) - PIPE's journey: From initial investment to a major pivot.(31:07) - The Gimlet Media story: The bet, the growth, and the Spotify acquisition.(33:48) - Rapid Fire: Sectors and regions MaC VC invests in.

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Ever wonder how venture capitalists actually judge your startup behind closed doors? In this episode of the BRAVE Southeast Asia Tech Podcast, Jeremy Au breaks down the brutal reality of VC economics and the math that drives the tech industry. We explore why just 5% of startups generate almost all of a fund's returns (The Power Law) and why struggling founders often get left behind. We also dive into real-world case studies, analyzing the dramatic valuation shifts during Instacart's IPO, and unpacking the legendary $1 Billion dilemma faced by the founders of Instagram (Kevin Systrom) and Snapchat (Evan Spiegel). Whether you're building an AI-native startup in Singapore or scaling a deep-tech company in the Philippines, understanding MOIC, DPI, and how the smart money moves is crucial. 00:00 - The VC's Dual Role: Value-Add vs. Portfolio Judge 01:02 - The Power Law: Why 5% of Startups Carry the Fund 01:38 - The Help Paradox: Prioritizing Winners Over Strugglers 02:23 - Case Study: Valuation Shifts in the Instacart IPO 04:21 - Exit Outcomes: Liquidations, Acqui-hires, and Cash-outs 04:58 - The $1 Billion Dilemma: Instagram vs. Snapchat 05:59 - Going Public & Raising VC Funds (LP/GP Dynamics) 06:51 - The Brutal Math of VC Returns: MOIC & DPI 09:03 - Outro & Community Resources Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/vc-economics-exit-strategies Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at https://www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter X : https://x.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts #VentureCapital #Business #Startup #Podcast #southeastasia #techpodcast

Le marché du private equity traverse une période charnière. Après un cycle exceptionnel entre 2011 et 2021, le décor a changé : sorties plus compliquées, liquidité plus rare, fonds zombies, performances sous pression… et une vraie nécessité d'être beaucoup plus sélectif.Pour mieux appréhender ces mutations, Aurore Perrin reçoit Pierre-Marie de Forville, co-fondateur et CEO d'iVesta Family Office et co-fondateur de Sapians.Depuis dix ans, il supervise la sélection des fonds de private equity et rencontre au quotidien les gérants qui façonnent cette classe d'actifs. Dans cet épisode, il livre une lecture lucide (et sans tabou) du marché, des changements en cours et des clés pour investir avec plus de discernement.Découvrez :Pourquoi les fonds de private equity ont tant de mal à sortir de leurs participations, et ce que cachent les DPI qui s'effondrent.La vérité derrière les fonds de continuation, les fonds zombies et les méga-fonds.Pourquoi la performance passée n'est plus un indicateur suffisant et ce qu'il faut regarder à la place.Les conseils concrets de Pierre-Marie pour sélectionner un bon fonds et piloter son cash management.Bonne écoute ! Des ressources pour approfondir : Pourquoi et comment investir dans le private equity en 2026 https://sapians.com/blog/pourquoi-et-comment-investir-dans-le-private-equityLes 5 règles d'or pour investir en private equity https://sapians.com/blog/5-regles-pour-investir-en-private-equityFonds de continuation : guide complet pour comprendre ce mécanisme du private equity https://sapians.com/blog/fonds-de-continuationInvestir en private equity secondaire : fonctionnement, avantages, stratégie https://sapians.com/blog/private-equity-secondaire-----------------------Attention : Les performances passées ne préjugent pas des performances futures et investir comporte des risques de perte partielle ou totale en capital. Ce contenu est informatif et ne constitue pas un conseil en investissement. Toute décision doit être adaptée à votre situation. Si vous souhaitez bénéficier de conseils personnalisés, veuillez créer votre compte ou prendre rendez-vous avec un conseiller Sapians.SAPIANS - RCS n°919 330 969 - ORIAS n°23003561 en qualité de CIF et COA. Activité de démarchage bancaire et financier.

What does a genuinely great VC fund look like today, from an LP's perspective?In this episode, James and Hector are joined by Dave Neumann, Investment Manager at Schroders Capital, one of the most experienced institutional investors in venture. With a career spanning decades and exposure to top-tier global funds, Dave shares how leading LPs actually evaluate venture firms, and where many GPs get it wrong.The conversation covers what separates top quartile funds from the rest, why venture is increasingly about building a firm rather than just making investments, and how the best managers create a long-term flywheel across talent, track record and capital.They also go deep on often overlooked topics including DPI, liquidity, fund size, and portfolio construction. Dave explains why access is everything in venture, why consistency matters more than one-off performance, and how LPs think about returns in a world where companies stay private for longer.A sharp, practical look at venture through the LP lens and what it takes to build a durable, high-performing fund.Topics Covered What defines a top VC fund today  The LP perspective on venture performance  Why venture is about building a firm, not just investing  Top quartile vs lower quartile returns and the compounding effect  Talent, incentives and the VC flywheel  Portfolio construction myths vs reality  Fund size and where returns are really made  DPI, liquidity and secondaries in Europe  How LPs think about risk, time horizons and outcomes  Why access is the biggest advantage in venture

Key Facts im Überblick ➡️ Hier geht’s zur Studie Fundraising: Leichte Stimmungsaufhellung, hohe Selektivität Die Stimmung im Fundraising hat sich gegenüber dem Vorjahr nur graduell verbessert. Kapital ist grundsätzlich vorhanden, wird jedoch deutlich selektiver vergeben. Entscheidend sind vor allem realisierte Rückflüsse (DPI). Rund 76% der Befragten knüpfen neue Commitments ausdrücklich an vorherige Ausschüttungen. Für Fondsmanager bedeutet das: Exits werden zur zentralen Voraussetzung für erfolgreiches Fundraising und die Verhandlungsmacht von Investoren steigt weiter. Dealaktivität und Wettbewerb: Mehr Transaktionen, höhere Anforderungen Etwa zwei Drittel der Befragten rechnen 2026 mit einer steigenden Dealaktivität. Gleichzeitig erwartet die Mehrheit einen weiterhin intensiven Wettbewerb um hochwertige Assets. Es kommen also wieder mehr Transaktionen an den Markt, doch konzentriert sich der Wettbewerb stark auf eine begrenzte Zahl qualitativ hochwertiger Targets. Die Anforderungen an Selektion, Strukturierung und operative Perspektive steigen entsprechend. Wertschöpfung: Operatives Wachstum schlägt Multiple Expansion Als wichtigste Wertschöpfungsquelle gilt unverändert operatives Wachstum. Die Hoffnung auf steigende Bewertungsmultiples verliert weiter an Bedeutung. Stattdessen rücken die Entwicklung der Portfoliounternehmen aus eigener Kraft, aktive Unterstützung durch Operating Partner sowie tiefe Sektorexpertise und funktionierende Wertsteigerungskonzepte in den Fokus. Der Trend: „Ärmel hochkrempeln“ ersetzt Multiple-Arbitrage. Co-Investments: Strategisches Kerninstrument Co-Investments haben sich als zentrales Bindungsinstrument zwischen GPs und LPs etabliert. Mit einem Zustimmungswert von 74% gelten sie aus Sicht der Fondsmanager als strategisch hoch relevant. Gleichzeitig stimmen 79% der Befragten der Aussage zu, dass nicht alle LPs organisatorisch und operativ in der Lage sind, Co-Investments effizient umzusetzen. Geschwindigkeit und Execution werden damit zum entscheidenden Differenzierungsmerkmal. GPs selektieren zunehmend, welchen Investoren sie Co-Investment-Gelegenheiten überhaupt zutrauen und damit anbieten. Sektoren, Regionen, Sourcing Attraktivste Sektoren 2026: B2B Services und Healthcare – dank resilienter Geschäftsmodelle, strukturellem Wachstum und klarer operativer Wertsteigerungspotenziale Attraktivste Region: Europa, insbesondere im Small- und Mid-Cap-Bereich, gefolgt von Nordamerika; Asien wird überwiegend opportunistisch gesehen Deal Sourcing: Persönliche Netzwerke bleiben der wichtigste Zugang zu Transaktionen, deutlich vor Beratern und Intermediären Exits: Strategische Käufer dominieren Für 2026 erwarten die Teilnehmer vor allem Exits an strategische Käufer, gefolgt von Secondary Sales an Finanzinvestoren. IPOs spielen weiterhin kaum eine Rolle – nicht aus strukturellen, sondern aus pragmatischen Gründen: Bewertungssicherheit, Prozessrisiken und Marktvolatilität sprechen aktuell gegen Börsengänge. Künstliche Intelligenz: Chance mit ambivalenter Perspektive 86% der Befragten sehen KI als Chance für ihre Portfoliounternehmen, insbesondere zur Effizienzsteigerung und datenbasierten Entscheidungsfindung. Gleichzeitig rechnen 57% mit disruptiven Effekten auf bestehende Geschäftsmodelle. Mit Blick auf den Personalbestand zeigt sich ein differenziertes Bild: 65% erwarten moderate Effizienzgewinne, vor allem in standardisierten Funktionen – weniger als Jobabbau, vielmehr als Transformation von Rollen und Prozessen. Fazit Der FCM PE Survey 2026 zeigt: Private Equity bleibt attraktiv, wird aber anspruchsvoller. Erfolgsentscheidend sind Qualität, operative Fähigkeiten, belastbare Track Records und der Zugang zu den richtigen Netzwerken. Das Fundraising verbessert sich langsam, belohnt aber vor allem Manager mit Substanz – und Investoren mit Geschwindigkeit und Execution-Kompetenz. ➡️ Mehr erfahren in der aktuellen Folge unseres Podcasts „PE Talk“: Der Beitrag Private Equity-Update – Zentrale Erkenntnisse aus dem FCM PE-Survey 2026 erschien zuerst auf Private Equity Magazin.

Vishal Verma's family office has been operating out of Silicon Valley for over thirty years. His father arrived from India in 1977 with eight dollars in his pocket, worked as a rocket scientist, and eventually became an entrepreneur and venture capitalist. The family formalized their office in the late nineties with early LP positions in Sequoia Fund IX and Kleiner Perkins. Today Vishal manages a portfolio split across twenty-one venture capital firms and twenty-eight direct co-investments in generational companies including Anthropic, Wiz, Stripe, and xAI.In this episode, Prashant and Vishal go deep on how a thirty-year family office actually thinks about venture capital — the vintage strategy, the concentration framework, the Anthropic bet, and why most of what you hear about the first mover advantage is wrong.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe talk about -– The family origin story: $8 at the border to Silicon Valley– Portfolio construction: 70/30 public to private– The vintage strategy: why you have to be at every party– Three concentrations reshaping the VC ecosystem– The Anthropic investment at $18B valuation– AI vs crypto: behavioral change is everything– Bigger funds not returning DPI is hogwash– Emerging managers: what actually earns a check– DPI reality and the IPO bottleneck– Why family offices exist and what banks can't doTimestamps:(00:00) -Preview(01:40) - Introduction to Vishal Verma and His Family's VC Legacy(03:39) - The Family Office Origin Story: From India to Silicon Valley(06:57) - Challenges and Triumphs of Early Indian-American Entrepreneurs(08:56) - Why the Indian-American Community Thrives: Hard Work, Education, and Family(10:22) - Portfolio Construction and the First Investment in Sequoia(14:15) - The Rationale Behind a 30% Allocation to Venture Capital(17:22) - How Shorter Fundraising Cycles Have Changed LP Strategy(22:25) - The Differentiator for Top-Tier VC Funds(24:34) - Understanding the "Concentration" of Returns, Capital, and Founders in VC(28:08) - Do Bigger Funds Actually Lead to Shrinking Returns?(30:17) - The "Mafias" of Silicon Valley and Their Role in Deal Flow(32:32) - The Investment Thesis for Anthropic at an $18B Valuation(36:55) - AI vs. Crypto: The Critical Difference of Behavioral Change(39:15) - First-Mover vs. Best-to-Market: Lessons from Tech History(40:32) - The Reality of Stretched DPI and Liquidity Challenges(41:35) - The Rise of "Megacorns" and the Upcoming IPO Wave(44:34) - AI Investing: When Does Conviction Become Overexposure?(48:38) - Public Market Strategy: A Tech-Heavy Portfolio(52:50) - ConclusionLinks:Edgewood Ventures - https://www.edgewoodvp.com/Connect with Vishal Verma - https://www.linkedin.com/in/vishal-verma-551327Connect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠Subscribe on Apple Podcasts - ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vc10x-investing-venture-capital-asset-management-private/id1632806986⁠Subscribe on Spotify - ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7F7KEhXNhTx1bKTBFgzv3k?si=WgQ4ozMiQJ-6nowj6wBgqQ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.com

Subscribe to the newsletter:New Wave | Hugo Rauch | Substack****Thanks you, Morning for hosting the podcast this week. Get 20% off your next meeting room (in Paris), just say you're coming from Hugo at New Wave.****

W marcu i kwietniu 2026 roku Rosja zrobiła coś, czego długo unikano: rozpoczęła frontalny test kontroli odłączenia własnego internetu. Blokady Telegrama i VPN, problemy z aplikacjami bankowymi, a nawet zakłócenia w funkcjonowaniu infrastruktury miejskiej pokazały skalę eksperymentu. W pewnym momencie to już nie była tylko cenzura — to był test odporności całego systemu.W tym wydaniu podcastu Bartosz Gołąbek analizuje największy kryzys cyfrowy w najnowszej historii Rosji. Kluczowe pytanie brzmi: kto realnie kontroluje proces? Coraz więcej wskazuje na rolę Federalna Służba Bezpieczeństwa, a nie tylko formalnych regulatorów.W odcinku m.in.:— jak przez lata budowano infrastrukturę kontroli (ustawy, suwerenny Runet, DPI)— dlaczego model rosyjski odbiega od chińskiego i w jakim kierunku ewoluuje— skutki techniczne blokad (VPN, usługi, infrastruktura miejska)— napięcia w elitach i brak spójnej linii politycznej— rola mediów społecznościowych i paradoksy władzy korzystającej z blokowanych narzędzi— cyfrowy rubel jako potencjalne domknięcie systemu kontroli. Link od Nikodema Cudzicha: Небайдужі Люди https://www.instagram.com/nebaiduzhi.lyudy

What does patience look like today when the best companies take 10–15 years to exit, and is it still worth it to wait that long? Today's episode of Origins dives into one of the most pressing questions in today's market: how to balance long-term conviction with the need for liquidity.David Clark, CIO of VenCap and a three-decade veteran of institutional venture investing, returns to the show to bring his rare LP perspective shaped by backing some of the most established venture franchises in the industry. Known for a data-first approach, David offers insight into how top-tier firms consistently generate returns, and how those dynamics evolve as fund sizes scale into the billions.Together with hosts Nick & Beezer, the group explores the implications of venture capital consolidation, the persistence of power law outcomes, and the shifting role of liquidity in private markets. From the rise and returns of mega-funds like a16z, to the growing importance of secondaries and delayed IPO timelines, the conversation surfaces the core tension of capturing extreme right-tail outcomes while still delivering tangible distributions to LPs. Along the way, they debate whether “patient capital” is truly a viable strategy, or if today's venture structure inherently rewards more active portfolio management. Ultimately, today's discussion offers a data-driven look at how venture is changing and how fund managers can look to stay ahead.—Quotes“If our managers have one of those top 1% companies, we want to encourage them to let it ride. Because we don't see the very best managers selling their best companies prematurely. That's not how we've seen the best fund level performance. And if you are able to hold those companies through to their full potential, that's where the real value is created.” – David Clark“I actually think the late stage private markets have become the public markets for early stage venture fund managers. And I think if you consider [that possibility], you can find much more predictability and consistency in performance, returns, and DPI. As much, or maybe even more than large later stage managers.” – Nick Chirls“What I've seen in the last few years is people taking exits into consideration, which makes my heart very happy. Because for years people were not, and they weren't thinking about returning capital along the way. You can take 10%, 20% and return 1x or 2x your fund. That is a very credible conversation to have with your LPAC.” – Beezer Clarkson—Time Stamps01:13 Meet David Clark, CIO of VenCap03:29 a16z Fundraising Surge05:31 First Principles Venture Model07:18 Public Markets And IPO Scale09:32 Do Big Funds Want Private13:17 Power Law Still Rules14:28 Fund Size And DPI Timing16:36 Early Stage Fund Math20:59 Small Funds Versus Platforms24:02 Portfolio Construction Tradeoffs25:40 Late Stage As New Public28:44 Liquidity As A New Skill30:55 When To Take Chips Off33:25 Founder Secondaries And Alignment35:13 Venture Capital Consolidation Risks40:47 Big Firms Funding Emerging Managers44:30 Patient Capital Debate48:00 Going Public Incentive Concerns—Links Connect with the guest and hosts on LinkedIn!David ClarkBeezer ClarksonNick ChirlsLearn more about:Read Packy McCormick's blog post on a16z: The Power BrokerVenCapOpenLPAsylum Ventures

On Monday's "Dan O'Donnell Show," Dan breaks news of a suit filed against DPI over its infamous waterpark retreat and urges the Wisconsin Legislature not to strike a deal with Governor Evers and let him off the hook for how high his 400-year veto has spiked property tax rates.

On Monday's "Dan O'Donnell Show," Dan breaks news of a suit filed against DPI over its infamous waterpark retreat and urges the Wisconsin Legislature not to strike a deal with Governor Evers and let him off the hook for how high his 400-year veto has spiked property tax rates.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us Fan MailBuckle up, because this week we're sitting down with Neha Champaneria Markle, who runs the Private Equity Solutions group at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Neha walks us through the entire private equity landscape and answers the questions you've been dying to ask an insider including: - Is "AI is going to destroy software and therefore private equity"? - Why are fundraising cycles getting longer?- What does vintage year really tell you about a fund's performance? - What's actually a "good" DPI, IRR, and TVPI- Why does every fund somehow claim to be top quartile? She also pulls back the curtain on subscription credit lines and how GPs use them to juice early IRRs, gives us a definition of "fund of funds" and "co-investment" that actually makes sense, and settles the score on whether PE investing is really just "volatility laundering".As the walls around private equity are coming down, it's important to understand which sectors are secretly crushing it, how managers actually get selected, the fee structures, and what the "democratization of private markets" really means for returns going forward.For a 14 day FREE Trial of Macabacus, click HEREShop our Self Paced Courses:Investment Banking & Private Equity Fundamentals HEREFixed Income Sales & Trading HEREWealthfront.com/wss. This is a paid endorsement for Wealthfront. May not reflect others' experiences. Similar outcomes not guaranteed. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. Rate subject to change. Promo terms apply. If eligible for the boosted rate of 4.15% offered in connection with this promo, the boosted rate is also subject to change if base rate decreases during the 3 month promo period.The Cash Account, which is not a deposit account, is offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC ("Wealthfront Brokerage"), Member FINRA/SIPC. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. The Annual Percentage Yield ("APY") on cash deposits as of 11/7/25, is representative, requires no minimum, and may change at any time. The APY reflects the weighted average of deposit balances at participating Program Banks, which are not allocated equally. Wealthfront Brokerage sweeps cash balances to Program Banks, where they earn the variable APY. Sources HERE. 

Dans cet épisode, je reçois Emmanuel Delaveau, General Partner chez Partech en charge des relations investisseurs, Geoffroy De Cooman, entrepreneur et cofondateur de Clariteer, et Ludovic Phalippou, professeur d'économie financière à l'université d'Oxford, pour une discussion autour de la performance en private equity — ses indicateurs, ses limites et ses angles morts.Nous avons parlé :du triptyque de base du reporting LP : TRI, TVPI et DPI, et de ce que chacun mesure réellement par rapport à ce qu'on croit qu'il mesuredu TRI comme taux fictif impossible à calculer à la main, et de pourquoi un TRI de 50% peut avoir rapporté moins d'argent qu'un TRI de 15%des trois techniques concrètes utilisées pour gonfler artificiellement un TRI : subscription lines de crédit, sortie rapide des meilleurs actifs, et cherry-picking de track recordde la raison structurelle pour laquelle les fonds américains affichent systématiquement de meilleurs TRI que les fonds européens ou africains — non pas en raison de leur performance réelle, mais de leur accès aux outils de manipulation des cashflowsdu catch-up clause et du hurdle rate : pourquoi la quasi-totalité des professionnels, y compris très seniors, pensent comprendre la mécanique des frais alors qu'ils se trompent sur l'essentielde l'hypothèse héroïque cachée dans la formule du TRI — celle qui pose que le capital non appelé et les distributions sont réinvestis au même taux que le TRI lui-même — et de ce que ça implique concrètement pour un LP individuelde ce que pourrait être un reporting idéal : des positions à jour, nettes de frais, comparables, avec des hypothèses de cashflows futurs partagées par le GP pour permettre une vraie planification côté LPUn épisode dense, technique et sans concession, qui pose une question centrale : si même les professionnels ne comprennent pas vraiment comment sont calculés les rendements qu'on leur vend, que dire des investisseurs particuliers à qui on démocratise aujourd'hui le private equity ?Recommandations des invités:“Pitch Anything” de Oren Klaff “Measuring Private Equity Funds performance” INSEAD de 2019 https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/centres/gpei/docs/Measuring_PE_Fund-Performance-2019.pdf Podcast et livres toutes les infos de Ludovic Phalippou https://pelaidbare.com/ Liens utiles:Emmanuel Delaveau: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanueldelaveau/ Geoffroy De Cooman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gdecooman/ Ludovic Phalippou: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ludovic-phalippou-5488b147/ Your IRR is not my IRR: https://www.clariteer.com/blog/your-irr-is-not-my-irr***************************Finscale, c'est bien plus qu'un podcast. C'est un écosystème qui connecte les acteurs clés du secteur financier à travers du Networking, du coaching et des partenariats.

This week on Swimming with Allocators, Earnest and Alexa chat with Anthony Giambrone, Partner at StepStone Group. Anthony shares his unconventional path from gas station manager and nightclub worker to leading a major global venture allocation platform. The conversation covers his break into investment banking, the scaling of GreenSpring into StepStone, and why relationships, EQ, and consistency across vintages matter more than market timing in venture. Key takeaways include the power-law nature of VC returns, how emerging managers and spinouts can stand out with a real edge and long-term relationship-building, why asset quality matters more than discounts in secondaries, and how AI, liquidity pressures, and longer private company lifecycles are reshaping the next decade of venture capital. Also, Rebecca Stuart, an employment-focused partner at Sidley, explains how she helps venture-backed companies navigate complex employment and co‑founder separations, equity and vesting pitfalls, evolving worker classification and pay transparency laws, and the fast-changing regulatory landscape around AI in hiring and employment decisions. Highlights from this week's conversation include: Anthony's Background and Humble Beginnings (0:42) Importance of Empathy and Relationships in Venture (4:16) Applying Greenspring/StepStone Experience to Today's Market (6:15) StepStone Venture Team, AUM, and Global Footprint (8:07) Why You Can't Time Early Stage Venture (9:38) Vintage Volatility and Power Law in Venture Outcomes (11:23) How Founder Ambition Affects GP and Fund Diligence (14:28) Insider Segment: Co‑Founder Divorce (18:04) Using New Investments to Clean Up Equity and IP (21:43) Employees Demanding Human Review in AI‑Driven Processes (25:43) Fund Slot Constraints and LP Down‑Selection (28:33) Advice for New LPs on Capturing Upper Quartile Returns (31:36) Is Top Quartile Performance Still Good Enough? (33:08) Secondaries Strategy and Asset Quality Over Discounts (34:31) Liquidity Pressures, DPI, and GP‑Led Solutions (38:37) StepStone's 10‑Year Lifecycle Partner Vision (40:35) StepStone Group is a global private markets firm focused on providing customized investment solutions and advisory and data services to its clients worldwide. The firm's venture capital and growth equity platform, built on the foundation of Greenspring Associates, manages $25B+ in AUM across primary fund investments, secondaries, and co-investments, as of June 30, 2025. Learn more at www.stepstonegroup.com. Sidley Austin LLP is a premier global law firm with a dedicated Venture Funds practice, advising top venture capital firms, institutional investors, and private equity sponsors on fund formation, investment structuring, and regulatory compliance. With deep expertise across private markets, Sidley provides strategic legal counsel to help funds scale effectively. Learn more at sidley.com. Swimming with Allocators is a podcast that dives into the intriguing world of Venture Capital from an LP (Limited Partner) perspective. Hosts Alexa Binns and Earnest Sweat are seasoned professionals who have donned various hats in the VC ecosystem. Each episode, we explore where the future opportunities lie in the VC landscape with insights from top LPs on their investment strategies and industry experts shedding light on emerging trends and technologies.  The information provided on this podcast does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this podcast are for general informational purposes only. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Governments are racing to adopt AI in public services. EU-funded projects show the pace is only accelerating. But this push raises a deeper question: what lies beneath? Too often, the answer is the same – weak or uneven digital foundations.Digital public infrastructure (DPI) can help integrate and connect siloed systems into a coherent digital government platform. So, where does it stand globally, as an enabler of AI development? What makes it work? And why does it matter more than ever for AI adoption? We explored these questions on this episode of the Digital Government Podcast with Krisstina Rao, now at Co-Develop, and outgoing Research Fellow at the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose at University College London (UCL), where she led the work on the Digital Public Infrastructure Map.Listen now and explore what's really powering AI-enabled public services behind the scenes!This podcast and podcast blog were produced within the project “EU Commission Project (24ES06/24DE33): Supporting regional entrepreneurship through the adoption of innovative technologies, including AI, in public services” with the financial assistance of the European Union via the Technical Support Instrument. The views expressed by the speakers in the project video are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

On March 6, 2026, WisconsinEye's Rewind Co-Host and WisPolitics.com Editor JR Ross and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel State Politics Reporter Jessie Opoien reviewed this week in state politics. On this week’s episode: Evers pushes ban on partisan gerrymandering DPI waterpark conference “routine” Congressional delegation responds to the war in Iran Baldwin opposes extending Schimel as U.S. attorney Evers signs […]

After a brief discussion of Trump and Netanyahu's war with Iran, we turn to defeating authoritarianism by fighting for policies that help people with their most pressing priorities, like good paying jobs, well funded public schools, healthcare and childcare. We discuss the introduction of new legislation for a BadgerCare Public Option, which represents the most comprehensive healthcare affordability proposal introduced in Wisconsin this session. The legislation would open Wisconsin's trusted BadgerCare program to anyone who lacks adequate employer-sponsored coverage. Citizen Action announces a statewide virtual town hall with all the Democratic Governor candidates, Tuesday, April 14th 6pm. We bring attention to Legislative Republicans taking a chunk out of Department of Public Instruction's (DPI's) already approved funding over debunked allegations that they paid for a junket in the Dells. What kind of budget deal allows the Republicans to unilaterally veto agreed funding levels after ignoring the results of their own investigation? We lament the expiration of the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program due to GOP opposition following a large land purchase to extend the Ice Age Trail in Devils Lake area. And, as the Legislature may do nothing to regulate data centers – as Big Tech and utilities want – local people fight back, as a Judge allows a Port Washington referendum to continue. Finally, what is the division between Governor Evers and Legislative Democrats on gerrymandering? Will Vos reach another damaging deal with Evers before they both head off into the sunset?

What happens when an organization decides to be bold — not just in vision, but in execution?In this episode, we sit down with a Chicago-based healthcare organization that completed the DPI™ journey and came out stronger, sharper, and more aligned than ever. They share candid lessons learned, the challenges they faced, and the mindset shifts that made the biggest difference.Most importantly, we explore how they stayed relentlessly focused on quality while upskilling their team — proving that operational excellence and people development aren't competing priorities, but powerful partners. From building capability at every level to creating sustainable improvements in access, flow, and outcomes, their story is both practical and inspiring.If you've ever wondered what it really looks like to commit to transformation — and sustain it — this conversation will leave you ready to Be Bold: DPI™ Now and Forever in Chicago.Guests: Nicole Kazee & Robin VarnadoHost: Amanda LaramieThis episode is sponsored by Stat. With Stat, you can finally move from guessing to knowing, ensuring your operations are as precise as your clinical care. Schedule a demo at stat.io/coleman Thanks for listening! If you or someone you know should be interviewed for this show, send us an email. Check us out on: FacebookInstagramLinkedInOur WebsiteTikTokTwitterYouTube

Math doesn't have to be intimidating, especially when it's the kind that helps fund companies and move science forward. In this episode, host Elaine Hamm, PhD, is joined by Isaiah Reeves, PhD, Biomedical Analyst at Solas BioVentures, for a practical and approachable deep dive into venture math. Drawing on his background as a scientist turned investor, Isaiah breaks down the core financial concepts every biotech founder should understand: from valuations and dilution to IRR, cap tables, and deal terms. The conversation offers real-world guidance for navigating fundraising, choosing the right partners, and avoiding common pitfalls that can derail long-term value creation. In this episode, you'll learn: How venture capitalists think about valuations, dilution, and returns, and why fully diluted post-money matters. Key metrics like IRR and DPI, and how they influence investment decisions and fund performance. Common deal terms and cap table “red flags” founders should watch out for as they raise capital. Tune in to learn how understanding venture math can help founders make smarter funding decisions, protect long-term value, and build biotech companies positioned for sustainable growth and impact. Links: Connect with Isaiah Reeves, PhD, and check out Solas BioVentures. Connect with Elaine Hamm, PhD, and learn about Tulane Medicine Business Development and the School of Medicine, as well as Cadenza Bio. Connect with Josh Eckelberry, MBA, and Mark Corrigan, MD. Check out the books The Go-Giver and Venture Deals. Check out the podcasts STAT, Biotech Hangout, and 20VC. Check out our previous episodes on Networking as an Introvert and Solas BioVentures with Travis Manasco. Connect with Ian McLachlan, BIO from the BAYOU producer. Learn more about BIO from the BAYOU - the podcast. Bio from the Bayou is a podcast that explores biotech innovation, business development, and healthcare outcomes in New Orleans & The Gulf South, connecting biotech companies, investors, and key opinion leaders to advance medicine, technology, and startup opportunities in the region.

Send a text"RAISE CAPITAL LIKE A LEGEND: https://go.fundraisecapital.co/apply"DOWNLOAD The DPI Liquidity Execution Pack: https://go.fundraisecapital.co/dpi-execution-packThe Private Equity market in 2026 is facing a massive DPI liquidity trap with a $3.2 trillion backlog of unsold companies. Are you a fund manager sitting on unrealized gains but zero cash to distribute to your LPs? In this masterclass, Ryan Miller breaks down the architect's blueprint for survival, exploring how to manufacture liquidity when the IPO window is shut. We dive deep into NAV facilities, continuation vehicles, strip sales, dividend recaps, and preferred equity to help you move from a "paper tiger" to a capital solution architect.This isn't just a podcast; it's a strategic briefing on the advanced financial engineering and secondary market maneuvers used by the world's elite firms. From mastering LPAC negotiations to surviving forensic audits, we're showing you how to satisfy the liquidity demands of pension funds and family offices without sacrificing your internal growth engine. Stop managing paper dreams and start distributing real-world alpha.Subscribe on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTOe79EXLDsROQ0z3YLnu1QQConnect with Ryan Miller:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rcmiller1/Instagram: The Fresh Patch Podcast - Where Good Pets Get It. Welcome to the Fresh Patch Podcast where we talk about everything, from dog...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Support the showDISCLAIMER: The information in every podcast episode “episode” is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. By listening or viewing our episodes, you understand that no information contained in the episodes should be construed as legal or financial advice from the individual author, hosts, or guests, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal, financial, or tax counsel on any subject matter. No listener of the episodes should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, the episodes without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer, finance, tax, or other licensed person in the recipient's state, country, or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. No part of the show, its guests, host, content, or otherwise should be considered a solicitation for investment in any way. All views expressed in any way by guests are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the show or its host(s). The host and/or its guests may own some of the assets discussed in this or other episodes, including compensation for advertisements, sponsorships, and/or endorsements. This show is for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as financial, tax, legal, or any advice whatsoever.

In this episode, Duane Mancini sits down with Sarah to unpack her path from healthcare operator to investor and what founders should know when raising capital today. Sarah shares how her experience as the 10th employee at a digital health startup shaped her empathy for founders and the practical lens she brings to diligence, from ICP and pricing to building durable foundations early. The conversation pulls back the curtain on venture mechanics—how syndication and relationships really work, why fundraising is difficult when LPs demand DPI, and how fund structure, lifecycle, and co-investments can shape outcomes for startups. Sarah also explains Angelini Ventures' global strategy and thesis-driven focus in areas like cardiology and neurology, and why “exitability” requires forward-looking insight into strategic buyers, technology shifts, and long-term fit.Sarah Fox LinkedInAngelini Ventures WebsiteDuane Mancini LinkedInProject Medtech WebsiteProject Medtech LinkedInThank you to our sponsors: Ward Law and JumpStart Inc.

Durante décadas, instituciones como Yale y Harvard transformaron la forma de invertir adoptando el llamado modelo endowment, reduciendo su exposición a mercados públicos y asignando más del 60% a activos alternativos En este episodio explico qué son realmente los activos alternativos, private equity, venture capital, private credit, infraestructura y real estate institucional, y por qué capturan primas de iliquidez y complejidad que no están disponibles en la bolsa tradicional. Analizamos la dispersión extrema entre el top quartile y el promedio en private equity, por qué el IRR neto, MOIC, DPI y la estructura de fees importan más de lo que la mayoría entiende, y cómo la selección del gestor es la verdadera habilidad del inversionista sofisticado. También comparto el framework A.L.T.E.R.N.A.T.I.V.O. para evaluar fondos con criterio estructural: asignación estratégica, liquidez, track record real, riesgo estructural, alineación de incentivos y timing de ciclo No se trata de perseguir retornos, se trata de entender la estructura. Mira el episodio completo y aprende a pensar como un inversionista de verdad y si quieres llevar esta conversación a ejecución real, únete a Wealth Club, una comunidad diseñada para inversionistas que buscan elevar su criterio, analizar oportunidades con profundidad y construir una estrategia patrimonial sólida en mercados públicos y privados. 

Gary Tan is the President and CEO of Y Combinator.YC is the startup accelerator behind companies like Airbnb, Stripe, Coinbase, Reddit, Twitch, and thousands more. According to Garry, they've invested in 20% of all startups worth $5B or more started since 2012.Gary has lived every side of the YC ecosystem. He went through YC as a founder, later became a partner, started Initialized Capital where he backed companies like Coinbase and Instacart, and then returned to lead YC.We walk through the different “eras” of YC, from the early Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston days in Cambridge, to scaling in San Francisco, to today's push back toward in person community and what Gary calls “founder mode” for the organization itself.We also talk about why the Bay Area still matters so much for startups, what's happening with California taxes and policy, and why Gary has gotten more involved in local politics to keep it the best place for founders to build companies.Then we go deep on the parts of startups people don't talk about enough. Co-founder conflict, rage quitting, therapy and coaching, and why companies inevitably take on the personality and emotional patterns of their founders.We also cover what YC looks for in applications, how the 13 week batch is structured, how Demo Day really works, how to choose the right investors, and what Gary thinks the next phase of YC looks like, including helping founders even after Series A.At the end, Gary shares his personal AI workflow, including meta prompting, comparing outputs across models, and the tools he uses every day to think and build faster.Try Numeral, the end-to-end platform for sales tax and compliance: https://www.numeral.com⁠Sign-up for Flex Elite with code TURNER, get $1,000: https://form.typeform.com/to/Rx9rTjFzTimestamps:(0:05) Moving from Winnipeg to California as a kid(1:35) How YC interviews work(2:55) The first batch in 2005(6:46) Why YC moved from Boston to SF(8:17) California's Billionaire Tax(11:00) Tech should care about public policies(17:01) Going direct to your audience(20:28) The 2nd Era of YC(24:01) Rage quitting Palantir, learning to understand himself(32:41) Co-founder conflict kills most startups(35:15) Joining YC as a group partner(37:22) Initialized Fund 1 (55x DPI)(39:44) Why Garry went back to lead YC(42:44) YC funds 20% of all $5B+ companies(44:30) Lessons from Brian Chesky(48:01) Garry's thoughts on YC rejection(51:41) How to get into YC(58:03) What it's like inside a 13-week YC batch(1:02:23) 20% of YC is hard tech(1:05:55) YC's 3rd era: founder mode, re-batching(1:07:56) Escaping the matrix(1:11:26) Garry's personal AI stack(1:20:25) Tech optimismReferencedY Combinator: https://www.ycombinator.com/Initialized Capital: https://initialized.com/Torch: https://torch.io/Perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/OpenAI: https://openai.com/Airbnb: https://www.airbnb.com/Kyle Vogt on his new startup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQoFbvyWEy8Follow Aaron Levie on X: https://x.com/levieFollow GaryTwitter: https://x.com/garytanLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/garytan/Follow TurnerTwitter: https://twitter.com/TurnerNovakLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/turnernovakSubscribe to my newsletter to get every episode + the transcript in your inbox every week: https://www.thespl.it/

We look at three new offerings from the Canyon team. Canyon keyboards and a mouse to check out Firstly here is the info for the keyboard and mouse https://digital.canyon.eu/?c=8832&k=e30622f271 and then here also https://digital.canyon.eu/?c=9365&k=b6613664fe . In general Canyon's products are usually good value, robust, and worth considering in a high usage location, and, or with active users. Canyon have announced the release of two sleek and high-functioning wireless accessories— the Wireless Keyboard HKB-W01 and the Wireless Mouse 2.4 GHz & Bluetooth—offered in vibrant blue and, for those wanting a softer look, now also available in chic pink. These are both playful and colourful which could work well with younger users and gamers. More details about the Canyon keyboards and mouse The Canyon Wireless Keyboard HKB-W01 delivers a whisper-quiet typing experience tailored to home and office alike. Its full-size layout provides comfortable and accurate key positioning, while wireless 2.4GHz connectivity offers stable performance from up to 10 metres away. Weighing just around 40g and compatible with both Windows and macOS systems, this keyboard brings modern design and productivity to any workspace. Paired perfectly is the Canyon Wireless Mouse 2.4 GHz & Bluetooth. This ultra-portable device features a high-precision optical sensor with up to 2400 DPI, multiple adjustable sensitivity levels, dual-mode wireless connectivity (2.4GHz and Bluetooth), and silent click buttons tested for up to 3 million clicks. With a light 65g build and ergonomic design, it's well-suited for both professional and personal use. Both accessories offer a bold blue finish ideal for contemporary workspaces—and now introduce a pink variant for users who prefer a more playful or personalised aesthetic. The matching colours make them a standout set for anyone looking to elevate their desk setup while keeping functionality at the forefront. Available from Harvey Norman – https://www.harveynorman.ie/computing/computer-accessories/keyboards-en/canyon-silent-wireless-keyboard-pink.html https://www.harveynorman.ie/computing/computer-accessories/keyboards-mice/canyon-mw-12-wireless-mouse-pink.html RGB Keyboard https://digital.canyon.eu/pages/search.php?search=%21collection9289&k=58bc31eb4a https://www.harveynorman.ie/computing/computer-accessories/keyboards-en/canyon-rgb-wireless-keyboard-black.html Work, game, or create with seamless precision – the HKB-W11 Wireless Keyboard is designed for those who want more from their setup. With dual connectivity, switch effortlessly between 2.4GHz wireless and two BT channels. It's perfect for multi-device users who work across laptops, tablets, and smartphones. Enjoy every keystroke with the scissor-switch mechanism that delivers a responsive, quiet, and comfortable typing experience built to last with 113 keys and a 10-million keystroke lifespan. The tactile feel enhances productivity without the noise as you're crunching numbers, writing reports, or chatting with friends. A touch of personality is there with 7-color RGB backlighting and key illumination, so you can type in low-light settings with ease. The slim, modern design adds sophistication to any workspace, while the splash-proof construction provides durability, protecting your keyboard from accidental spills. Forget about constantly swapping batteries, too – this keyboard is fully rechargeable with a built-in 1600mAh Li-Polymer battery. You'll get hours of uninterrupted use on a single charge. Plus, with 12 multimedia function keys, there's instant access to volume, playback, and other essential controls at your fingertips. Compatible with Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android, the HKB-W11 is the ultimate wireless wonder for those who want power, flexibility, and a flawless typing experience every time. Fluid Typing Experience – Scissor Switch Experience precision and comfort with the scissor-switch mechanism, which delivers smooth, responsive keystrokes with minimal...

Welcome back to the EUVC Podcast, where we bring you the people and perspectives shaping European venture.In this pitch episode, Andreas Munk Holm sits down with Pedro Ribeiro Santos, Partner at Armilar, to walk LPs through the story, strategy, and succession plan behind Armilar Fund IV — the firm's new pan-European early-stage fund.Armilar is one of Europe's longest-standing independent tech VCs and Portugal's original venture firm. Born inside a bank 25 years ago, spun out almost a decade ago, and now a multi-generational partnership, the firm has backed some of Portugal's most important tech companies and quietly built a track record of dragons (fund-returners), not just unicorns.Fund IV doubles down on what the team knows best: early-stage, tech-intensive companies across data, digitalization, and connectivity, with a strong focus on Portugal & Spain and selective investments across the rest of Europe.ShareHere's what's covered:01:17 | What is “Armilar”?02:30 | Origins & Spinout 03:40 | Why being based in Portugal with almost no local ecosystem 04:50 | From US to Europe, Then Back Home 07:22 | Fund IV in a Nutshell 09:44 | Geography & LP Backbone11:41 | Track Record, DPI & Dragons 13:51 | Selected Portfolio & Staying Power 16:19 | Team & Generational Design 21:38 | Iberia's State of Play (Portugal & Spain) 27:45 | Golden Visa & LP Angle 29:29 | Closing & What LPs Should Care About

Japan is often seen as a “mature” financial market.But the real story is in what's quietly shifting underneath.In this episode of Couchonomics with Arjun, Arjun is joined from Tokyo by Pieter Franken (Co-Founder & CEO at GFTN Japan) to unpack what's actually changing in Japan's fintech and digital assets landscape and what it means for founders, investors, and global players looking at the Japan opportunity.They go deep on stablecoins and why Japan may be ahead on regulation, the upcoming move to classify crypto and digital assets as financial instruments, and why payments remain fragmented despite Japan's innovation legacy. The conversation also explores what could unlock faster adoption (from interoperability to cost structures), how Japan's national digital ID rollout could become a foundational layer, and why Japan–MENA collaboration is still early but strategically important.

Marketing documents for a VC fund Hello, this is Hall T. Martin with the Startup Funding Espresso -- your daily shot of startup funding and investing. In raising funds from Limited Partners, make sure to prepare the following marketing materials: Website. The website should reflect the values of the general partners and details about the fund. This is the first place investors go to learn more. Pitchdeck. Just as startups use a pitchdeck to communicate their deal, a VC fund needs a pitchdeck to present to Limited Partners. One pager. A one-pager describes the overview of the fund, including investment thesis, track record, and bios of the general partners. Due diligence questionnaire. It's a summary of the fund and how it compares to others, such as ESG funds. Data room. The basic documents and records of the fund should be in one place that LPs can access. Track record. A spreadsheet showing the track record of the fund with all the basic metrics, including TVPI, DPI, and IRR. Limited Partnership Agreement. This document lays out the details of the fund, including investment thesis, capital calls, management fees, and distributions. Private Placement Memorandum. This document highlights the financial characteristics of the fund and the risks associated with the investment. Make sure you have these documents ready for your fundraise. Thank you for joining us for the Startup Funding Espresso where we help startups and investors connect for funding. Let's go startup something today. _________________________________________________________ For more episodes from Investor Connect, please visit the site at: http://investorconnect.org Check out our other podcasts here: https://investorconnect.org/ For Investors check out: https://tencapital.group/investor-landing/ For Startups check out: https://tencapital.group/company-landing/ For eGuides check out: https://tencapital.group/education/ For upcoming Events, check out https://tencapital.group/events/ For Feedback please contact info@tencapital.group Please follow, share, and leave a review. Music courtesy of Bensound.

(00:00-28:10) People texting in at 4:56 A.M. Spelunking with Doug. Drama with the Ottawa Senators. Thrilling game last night and the Miami Hurricanes are onto the CFP National Championship. Dumb penalties and dropped interceptions. Audio of Mario Cristobal in the postgame. Soy sauce stains. Mr. Lix denies his Ole Miss attendance. Audio of Pete Golding talking about the uncalled DPI at the end of the game. Mutual combat. Third straight year with no SEC representation in the championship. But also, who cares?(28:18-44:50) Was it 1987? Audio of Jim Montgomery on The Fast Lane yesterday and discussed what went down with Jordan Binnington and Joel Hofer in Chicago. Doug remains skeptical. Drop audit.(45:00-59:45) Is it even possible for Tim to have a better show than yesterday? Martin's EMOTD ballot. Jimbo Fisher audio that Jackson forgot to cut. Wait, that's not Jimbo. Doug's mad at Lane Kiffin. Love you guys. What happened to the committee the president put Saban on?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome back to the EUVC Podcast where we connect and champion the people building European venture.In this episode, Andreas Munk Holm sits down with two pillars of Italy's modern tech ecosystem:Giovanni Daprà, CEO & co-founder of Moneyfarm, one of Europe's leading digital wealth management platformsPaolo Gesess, co-founder & GP at United Ventures, one of Italy's premier early-stage VC firmsTogether, they unpack how Moneyfarm went from a Milan-founded startup to a pan-European fintech player; how Italy's ecosystem has evolved; how United Ventures backed Giovanni through multiple strategic inflection points; why the shift from Blitzscaling to Default Alive made Moneyfarm stronger; and how European fintech is entering an era of consolidation and acquisition-led expansion.This is an episode full of concrete frameworks, real founder–VC dynamics, and hard-earned lessons from building across Italy, the UK, and Europe.Here's what's covered:04:00 | Moneyfarm as a digital wealth manager built to make investing simple, guided + discretionary, now managing £6.5B across Italy & the UK04:54 | Why United Ventures backed them: early conviction in a massive savings problem, founder clarity from day one, and a mission that remained unchanged for 13 years06:31 | Building from Italy first: leveraging local regulatory fluency + talent cost advantages while keeping a pan-European vision from day zero08:59 | Italy today vs. 2012 — more capital, more repeat founders, more international operators returning, and a dramatically deeper talent pool13:21 | The “tipping point” moments — moments where the board must choose: buy back shares, bring in global investors, widen the model (e.g., B2B2C)17:45 | Where Moneyfarm is now — strong in Italy + UK, product expansion complete (brokerage + pensions), and preparing for the next geographic phase18:37 | Surviving the capital cycle: seeing interest rates spike in real-time, shifting from burn to profitability in 24 months, and reshaping the framework for Europe19:50 | The Europe playbook: “default alive” — why blitzscaling never fit most of Europe, and how disciplined scaling becomes a competitive advantage22:25 | Founders vs. VCs on growth vs. profit — debunking the myth: alignment, capital structure, and long-term value trump forcing hypergrowth23:09 | Managing founder stress & incentives — secondaries, refreshed equity plans, changing founder roles, and adapting governance over a 10-year journey25:41 | The cap table reality — Moneyfarm with VCs, PEs, and industrials: why no one could force a “burn it all” strategy even if they wanted to27:41 | Building European-style VC — United Ventures' thesis: European standards, European ambition, and preparing founders for international Series B/C investors30:09 | The next frontier: pan-European expansion, from product expansion → to commercial optimization → to cross-border consolidation34:13 | Growing into M&A as a founder — Moneyfarm's three acquisitions, building the muscle, and using M&A as a growth lever when organic slows36:11 | The M&A playbook — when to build vs. buy, why scale matters, and the founder's job in orchestrating product-led acquisitions37:40 | What founders often underestimate — M&A is expensive, cognitively draining, and requires dedicated people so you don't destroy core execution39:47 | The board's role — independent perspectives, long-term value thinking, and helping the CEO avoid deal fever or tunnel vision41:00 | The hard question: exits & fund cycles — how VCs manage tail-end holdings, DPI realities, continuation funds, and why selling is not betrayal43:48 | DPI explained simply — why some funds need liquidity earlier, and why United didn't (strong DPI → more patience → no forced exit)

Discover why disciplined due diligence beats FOMO, how to wield AI without losing human insight, why “cash is king” again, and what the rise of lean micro-unicorns means for VCs, family offices, and startups.   In this episode of the Registered Investment Advisor Podcast, Seth Greene interviews Daniel Nikic, Global Investment Specialist and Founder of COHRES, who explains why disciplined due diligence beats FOMO, how AI should augment human insight, and why “cash is king” again. He shares how COHRES tailors research for VCs, family offices, and startups, forecasts durable trends in AI, energy, healthcare, and data, and explores the rise of lean micro-unicorns. Nikic also details the operational pivots behind scaling a boutique firm toward AI-enabled analysis while aligning execution with investor priorities.   Key Takeaways: → How the most expensive errors are chasing hype, skipping time-horizon work, and forgetting that once capital leaves your account, there's no guarantee it returns. → Why ChatGPT-level answers aren't enough for funds. → How big brands will stay big and emerging funds with DPI will struggle to raise. → Why direct on-call collaboration provides guidance when speed matters. → How having a global perspective allows for tailored insights to what each investor treats as a green flag or a deal breaker.   Daniel Nikic is a global investment research expert and entrepreneur with over a decade of experience advising investors, high-net-worth individuals, enterprises, and entrepreneurs. Raised in Canada and now based in Croatia, Daniel specializes in global markets, focusing on the U.S., European, and Middle Eastern financial landscapes. As the founder of COHRES, Daniel has analyzed over 15,000 companies across sectors like AI, software, and data. He delivers high-quality market research, financial management, due diligence, and AI data auditing to empower clients to make strategic, informed decisions. Known for his collaborative approach, Daniel builds long-term relationships rooted in trust and shared success. Daniel is also passionate about mentoring early-stage entrepreneurs, guiding them on market strategies, innovation, and business growth. His expertise in global markets and emerging trends makes him a trusted advisor in the financial sector.   Connect With Daniel:   Website: https://www.danielnikic.com/ https://cohres.com/ X: https://x.com/DNikic87 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Nikic/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-nikic/   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(0:00) Falcons upset Rams(20:00) Bijan Robinson's huge night(42:00) Sean McVay on loss to Falcons(48:00) Did officials miss a late DPI? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Daniel Schwalbe, DomainTools Head of Investigations and CISO, is sharing their work on "Inside the Great Firewall." This two-part research project analyzes an extraordinary 500–600GB leak that exposes the internal architecture, tooling, and human ecosystem behind China's Great Firewall. Across both parts, you break down thousands of leaked documents, source code repositories, diagrams, packet captures, and telemetry that reveal how systems like the Traffic Secure Gateway, MAAT, Redis-based analytics, and modular DPI engines work together to censor, surveil, and fingerprint users at scale. Taken together, the research shows how the Great Firewall functions not just as a technical system, but as a living censorship-industrial complex that adapts, learns, and coordinates across government, telecoms, and security vendors. The research can be found here: Inside the Great Firewall Part 1: The Dump Inside the Great Firewall Part 2: Technical Infrastructure Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Week In Startups is made possible by:Uber -  http://uber.com/twistPilot - https://pilot.com/twistNorthwest Registered Agent - https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twistToday's show: Boom is still making supersonic jets but ALSO plans to start selling their turbines as power sources for AI data centers. It's a perfect example of problem-solving on the go and how “the best founders… MAKE IT HAPPEN.”Join us for another insightful VC roundtable episode, featuring special guests Bryan Kim (a16z) and David Clark (Ven Cap).They're discussing why Boom's turbine announcement is about necessity AND opportunity PLUS…- Why we might NOT be in an AI bubble after all- Promoting your startup without spending your entire runway on marketing- Why founders need to be RELENTLESS- Bill Gurley's classic response about Uber's Total Addressable Market- AND LOTS MOREBill Gurley's iconic “Miss By a Mile” post: https://abovethecrowd.com/2014/07/11/how-to-miss-by-a-mile-an-alternative-look-at-ubers-potential-market-size/Link to David's LinkedIn (including the AI Bubble chart): https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7404139606398443520/Timestamps:(02:11) It's a VC Roundtable with special guests Bryan Kim (a16z) and David Clark (Ven Cap)(03:07) Why Bryan is leading a Series A into learning app Oboe(06:20) Calculating a startup's value to make everyone “somewhat unhappy”(09:19) How Oboe hits a lot of the same metrics that LAUNCH looks for in startups(11:58) Uber AI Solutions - Your trusted partner to get AI to work in the real world. Book a demo with them TODAY at http://uber.com/ai-solutions(12:57) How funds decide when to cash out and lock in some DPI(18:12) When some LPs want to sell and others want to buy…(19:57) Pilot - Visit https://www.pilot.com/twist and get $1,200 off your first year. (24:07) Is the threat of AI job displacement boosting self-improvement apps?(27:37) Why Jason says we're all standing on the shoulders of Bill Gurley(29:46) Northwest Registered Agent - Form your entire business identity in just 10 clicks and 10 minutes. Get more privacy, more options, and more done—visit https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twist today!(31:28) Boom's turbine pivot, and why it's about necessity AND opportunity (in that order)(34:14) THE BEST FOUNDERS find a way to make it happen!(39:10) So… are we in an AI bubble? David says NOT NECESSARILY! Checking out the actual metrics.(44:36) We're still SO EARLY in AI… We're still seeing mostly skeuomorphic uses! (It's a real word!)(48:06) William Gibson was right: “The Street finds its own uses for things”(51:11) How AI startups should think about margins(55:58) Why LAUNCH tells founders to “start at the high end”(57:33) Should founders spend a lot of $$$ on marketing in 2025? The panel disagrees!(1:00:05) Momentum vs. Product Release Velocity(1:03:26) It all comes back to the “relentlessness of the founder”(1:05:17) Our panel's hopes and dreams for the coming year*Subscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.comCheck out the TWIST500: https://twist500.comSubscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcp*Follow Lon:X: https://x.com/lons*Follow Alex:X: https://x.com/alexLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelm/*Follow Jason:X: https://twitter.com/JasonLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis/*Thank you to our partners:(11:58) Uber AI Solutions - Your trusted partner to get AI to work in the real world. Book a demo with them TODAY at http://uber.com/ai-solutions(19:57) Pilot - Visit https://www.pilot.com/twist and get $1,200 off your first year. (29:46) Northwest Registered Agent - Form your entire business identity in just 10 clicks and 10 minutes. Get more privacy, more options, and more done—visit https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twist today!

(0:00) Eagles top Lions(39:00) Rock Ya-Sin's DPI call Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

1 hour and 55 minutes The Sponsors Thank you to Underground Printing for making this all possible. Rishi and Ryan have been our biggest supporters from the beginning. Check out their wide selection of officially licensed Michigan fan gear at their 3 store locations in Ann Arbor or learn about their custom apparel business at undergroundshirts.com. Our associate sponsors are: Peak Wealth Management, Matt Demorest - Realtor and Lender, Ann Arbor Elder Law, Michigan Law Grad, Human Element, Sharon's Heating & Air Conditioning, The Sklars Brothers, Champions Circle, Winewood Organics, Community Pest Solutions, Venue by 4M where record this, and Introducing this season: Radecki Oral Surgery, and Long Road Distillers. 1. Offense vs Purdue Starts at :57 This podcast starts out telepathically but then Brian's intrusive thoughts got telepathed so it had to stop. Dave introduces the Snack of the Week. Would you rather talk about this game or Dunkaroos? Bryce Underwood - not good in the first half. A fumble on the sideline is usually harmless unless it involves the silliest rule in football. His scrambling was good but you can't build a business in this industry by scrambling, that will get you killed against Ohio State. Too many missed passes, he doesn't really settle in. By the Georgia game, JJ was probably where Bryce is now - many mistakes but you can see the talent. On the flip side, the offensive line had a great game. Purdue loaded the box but Jordan Marshall rushed for 185 yards anyways. You can't tackle him with just one guy, he will emerge from piles. This is the fourth straight game where Sprague has been incredible. Bryson Kuzdzal had some nice runs on the game-sealing drive. Tight ends were fine, more catches by Zack Marshall. There's not a lot of separation between Marshall and Klein. Semaj had way fewer snaps, Goodwin saw more time. You have six 2nd or 3rd year players on this offensive line that can absolutely play in this conference. The future of the offensive line is bright.  2. Defense vs Purdue Starts at 41:43 How do we even feel about the defensive performance? We've seen Purdue all season be an offense that moves the ball down the field but can't score. That happened but it felt bad. Cam Brandt was too far upfield on a couple big run plays. Why are the good defensive ends not on the field for 70% of the snaps that they should be out for? Why are the starters rotating out so much throughout the game? Assuming he's healthy, do you put Jaishawn Barham at DE or LB against Ohio State? Michigan didn't commit to a position for him and it's hurting his play. Way fewer three defensive tackle sets, yay. If your name is going to be "Michael Jackson" you need to go by "Mike". Jyaire Hill got sealed a couple times but was otherwise fine. The endzone DPI was DPI. Metcalf got sucked in during the touchdown.  3. Hot Takes, Game Theory, and Special Teams Starts at 1:06:04 Takes hotter than the amount of trouble Jason would get into if he did the Hot Takes voice at a golf tournament where he was during recording. Michigan has not been good at Special Teams Things, why are they running kickoffs out of the middle of the endzone? Another punt that Semaj didn't field that gave up 20 yards. Did Jay Harbaugh have a heat map for punting? We've never had to talk so much about shield punting positioning but now we have to. Clock management at the end of the first half was pretty on-point. Purdue's 4th down decision making was aggressive which you do if you want to try to win the game. Shout out to Michigan fans for feeding energy back into the team in the 4th quarter. The students did the shirtless thing that's become a college football thing. Also shout out to Barry Odom for getting the Purdue bench fired up.  4. Around the Big Ten with Jamie Mac Starts at 1:28:22 Indiana 55, Maryland 10 This is a typical Indiana game these days. Indiana's offense is a machine. The defense is... also a machine?? Every week, Indiana has some weird defensive stat that's historical and worth tracking. Mendoza threw and interception on his first play, the game was wobbly for about a quarter.  Ohio State 38, Penn State 14 Briefly competitive in the 2nd quarter. Penn State is the first top five team in the history of college football to lose five straight games. Julian Sayin had 14 yards per attempt. Ohio State finally catches a break and gets an obvious targeting call to not get enforced.  Minnesota 23, Michigan State 20 (OT) MSU benches Aidan Chiles for Alessio Milivojevic. The Spartans lose this game despite outgaining Minnesota by about 160 yards. The final two minutes of this game are worth watching. Northwestern QB Aidan Chiles?? Alessio had a better EPA than Chiles any other game this season. USC 21, Nebraska 17 If you like offense, don't look at this game. We are suddenly having feelings about Wink Martindale. Dylan Raiola is done for the season and USC is able to grind out a win. Raiola's backup went 5/7 for 7 yards.  Illinois 35, Rutgers 13 A solid victory for Illinois, most of Rutgers' yards are when it was 35-6. Bert: "I put us as good as any 6-3 team out there. That doesn't mean anything." Bowl eligible in consecutive seasons for the first time since 2011. Illinois is the new Wisconsin.  MUSIC: "On & On"—The Marcus King Band "Husbands"—Geese "Don't Forget That I Love you"—Pale Jay “Across 110th Street”—JJ Johnson and his Orchestra