Podcasts about General Catalyst

Before he founded Render, Anurag Goel was the fifth engineer at Stripe, where he watched roughly a fifth of the engineering team disappear into managing AWS, writing brittle, repetitive, error-prone infrastructure scripts that had nothing to do with the actual product. That experience became the seed for Render: a platform that automates away the undifferentiated DevOps work and lets application teams ship without standing up their own cloud team. Today, millions of developers build on it, and Render has raised over $260M from Bessemer and General Catalyst. In this episode, Tobi and Anurag get into what's actually changing as AI moves from hype to production. Anurag makes the case that agents are simply a new kind of application, long-running, stateful, tool-heavy, and a new kind of end user you have to design for. He explains why Render deliberately refuses the "AI cloud" label, what he's building with Workflows and sandboxes, and why the hardest part of shipping agents isn't building them but seeing inside them. The conversation also goes wide: how to hire executives when interviews lie, why short-lived keys and blast-radius thinking matter more than container escapes, how distribution is shifting from SEO to getting ChatGPT and Claude to recommend you, and why, despite all the "SaaS is dead" noise, specialization isn't going anywhere. Topics covered: Why ~20% of Stripe's engineers were stuck managing AWS and how that became Render "We're not the AI cloud, we're the application cloud," and why the distinction matters Agents, as a new type of application (and a new end user), you have to build for Render Workflows and sandboxes: the consolidated AI runtime Hiring executives when interviews are an imperfect signal Security as blast-radius management: short-lived keys over "admin forever" The shift from SEO to GEO, getting chatbots to recommend your product Why SaaS isn't dying, and specialization still wins

Dan Nathan welcomes Current co-founders Stuart Sopp and CTO Trevor Marshall to discuss Current's business momentum, the fintech landscape, and the evolving AI build-out. Sopp announces an $80 million Series E at a $1.5 billion valuation led by Spring Coast, noting Current's profitability, deepened partnerships with Cross River and General Catalyst's customer value fund, and over 70% growth for three consecutive years. Marshall describes Current's compounding product strategy around combining banking and liquidity, and how disciplined infrastructure cost controls shape their AI approach, including customer-facing personalization and potential use of lower-cost or self-hosted models. The group debates token pricing deflation, open-source models, hyperscaler distribution advantages (especially Google/Vertex), SaaS displacement, and macro factors affecting consumers, concluding fintech winners are emerging and public-market interest may return via IPOs or M&A. —FOLLOW USYouTube: @RiskReversalMediaInstagram: @riskreversalmediaTwitter: @RiskReversalLinkedIn: RiskReversal Media The financial opinions expressed in Risk Reversal content are for information purposes only. The opinions expressed by the hosts and participants are not an attempt to influence specific trading behavior, investments, or strategies. Past performance does not necessarily predict future outcomes. No specific results or profits are assured when relying on Risk Reversal. Before making any investment or trade, evaluate its suitability for your circumstances and consider consulting your own financial or investment advisor. The financial products discussed in Risk Reversal carry a high level of risk and may not be appropriate for many investors. If you have uncertainties, it's advisable to seek professional advice. Remember that trading involves a risk to your capital, so only invest money that you can afford to lose. Derivatives are not suitable for all investors and involve the risk of losing more than the amount originally deposited and any profit you might have made. This communication is not a recommendation or offer to buy, sell or retain any specific investment or service.

En esta tertulia hablamos con Jesús Martínez sobre la nueva financiación de Factorial junto a General Catalyst y el papel del Customer Value Fund como una nueva forma de financiar el crecimiento en empresas SaaS. Analizamos cómo funciona este instrumento, qué implica para el go-to-market de Factorial y por qué este tipo de acuerdos pueden cambiar la relación entre venture capital, deuda y crecimiento.También debatimos sobre el estado actual del SaaS en plena transformación por la inteligencia artificial. ¿Está muriendo el software tradicional o simplemente está evolucionando? A partir de Factorial, hablamos de agentes, automatización, consumo de tokens y de cómo las compañías están intentando convertir la IA en valor real para sus clientes.Además, comentamos el momento que vive el mercado global de IA, las posibles salidas a bolsa de Anthropic y OpenAI, la inversión masiva en centros de datos, y el miedo a una posible corrección en las valoraciones de startups de IA.Una tertulia sobre financiación, SaaS, inteligencia artificial, venture capital y el nuevo equilibrio entre hype, infraestructura y negocio real.

John Kim, or Kimmer, has raised more than $70 billion across his career for leading venture capital and private equity firms. Kimmer recently distilled three decades of lessons into The Tao of Fundraising, the best book I've ever read on fundraising for investment managers. Since then, Kimmer joined a General Catalyst portfolio company, Lila Sciences, as Chairman and President of Corporate Development. Our conversation covers Kimmer's philosophy about raising capital, the sales process, art of persuasion, best practices in a meeting, frameworks determining fundraising success, taxonomy of institutional investors, ideal sales team structure and compensation, and the features he carried over from capital formation for funds to a new operating role. Learn More Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Access Transcript with Premium Membership Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠)

In this episode of Entrepreneurship Lab, I sit down with Arjun Vora and Tito Goldstein to explore how AI is reshaping the future of hourly work.After leading product for Uber's driver app and speaking with thousands of drivers, Arjun realized that millions of hourly workers—from nurses and factory workers to event staff—were being overlooked by modern technology. That insight led to the creation of Teambridge, a company backed by General Catalyst that is transforming workforce management for the “forgotten workforce.”Today, Teambridge supports more than 500,000 hourly workers across 200+ organizations, including Express Healthcare Staffing, Amerant Bank Arena, and Levi's Stadium.We discuss entrepreneurship, scaling a startup, the future of AI in workforce management, and why flexibility, accessibility, and profitability are becoming essential for the modern workforce.Tune in, and you will get inspired by these two incredible entrepreneurs.

Jeannette zu Fürstenberg, Managing Director bei General Catalyst, hat zusammen mit Ex-Airbus-CEO Tom Enders, MSC-Fellow Nico Lange, Airbus-Aufsichtsratschef René Obermann und Ökonom Moritz Schularick ein Papier zur europäischen Verteidigungsautonomie vorgelegt. Die Botschaft ist eindeutig: Es fehlt weder Geld noch Technologie. Zu Fürstenberg sagt: „Was es aber jetzt braucht, ist wirklich mehr Innovationsdynamik, den politischen Willen und auch europäische Koordination, damit das gelingt." Sie ist überzeugt, dass es auch ein neues Mindset bei Regierungen braucht: Weg von großen Rüstungsprojekten alter Prägung hin zu flexiblen, modernen Lösungen junger europäischer Unternehmen. Entscheidend sei dabei, nicht unzählige Leistungen in Bestellkatalogen festzuzurren: „Was es braucht, ist den Staat als Ankerkunden. Du musst Signale setzen und sagen, derjenige, der mir jetzt eine funktionsfähige Rakete hinstellt, der bekommt einen Rahmenvertrag über 5 Milliarden."Table.Briefings - For better informed decisions.Sie entscheiden besser, weil Sie besser informiert sind – das ist das Ziel von Table.Briefings. Wir verschaffen Ihnen mit jedem Professional Briefing, mit jeder Analyse und mit jedem Hintergrundstück einen Informationsvorsprung, am besten sogar einen Wettbewerbsvorteil. Table.Briefings bietet „Deep Journalism“, wir verbinden den Qualitätsanspruch von Leitmedien mit der Tiefenschärfe von Fachinformationen. Professional Briefings kostenlos kennenlernen: table.media/testenHier geht es zu unseren WerbepartnernHol dir deine persönlichen Daten mit Incogni zurück und hol dir 60 % Rabatt auf ein Jahresabo: https://incogni.com/tabletodayImpressum: https://table.media/impressumDatenschutz: https://table.media/datenschutzerklaerungBei Interesse an Audio-Werbung in diesem Podcast melden Sie sich gerne bei Laurence Donath: laurence.donath@table.media Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Perspectives, Escala Chief Investment Officer, Tracey McNaughton, unpacks a series of eye-opening conversations with leading AI investors and operators exploring how AI-native companies are redesigning workflows, reshaping industries, and blurring the lines between software, services, and private equity. (1:34) What struck me reading through your notes wasn't just the excitement around AI – it was that people are starting to describe AI not as a tool anymore, but as an operating system. (4:21) One thing that also came through very strongly in these conversations was the gap between Australia and the US in terms of AI adoption. (6:53) You also seemed genuinely shocked by how far behind wealth management still is. (7:24) It amazes us that we still don't receive information like tax reporting any faster than we did 10 years ago. The pipes need fixing. (8:36) Now, the General Catalyst discussion really went to another level because they're not just investing in AI software companies anymore – they're buying industries. (10:08) The call centre example was extraordinary. (11:22) The healthcare discussion may have been the most radical of all – because they literally bought a healthcare system. (13:03) Then you move to Bain Capital Ventures, and the discussion becomes incredibly technical. (16:23) Bain also raised a really important point: if everyone can build with AI, what becomes defensible? (17:34) There was another huge theme across all these discussions – services businesses becoming software businesses. (18:56) There was also a very strong undercurrent around private markets becoming even more important. (20:17) So, after hearing all of this, what do you think the biggest takeaway is?

This Week In Startups is made possible by:Grasshopper Bank - https://grasshopper.bank/twistLinkedIn - https://linkedIn.com/twistNorthwest Registered Agent - https://northwestregisteredagent.com/twistPlaud - https://Plaud.ai/twist Why raise $200 million if you are already profitable? That's the question Jason and Alex put to Mercury's founder and CEO, Immad Akhund, after the entrepreneur raised another massive round for his upstart, technology-friendly bank. TWiST then welcomed Kled founder Avi Patel to discuss the startup he considers a clear ripoff of his own company. Jason gavels in verdicts on all parties involved, including Y Combinator and venture capital firm General Catalyst. The show closes with a news lightning round, including OpenAI's decision to offer $2 million in token credits to hundreds of startups.Guest Links:Mercury https://mercury.comMercury funding announcement https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260520511817/en/Mercury-Raises-$200-Million-Series-D-at-$5.2B-ValuationImmad Akhund on X https://x.com/immadKled https://www.kled.ai/Avi Patel on X https://x.com/avipat_/Avi's complaint https://x.com/avipat_/status/2055384102409253056General Catalyst https://www.generalcatalyst.com/Y Combinator https://www.ycombinator.com/Delve https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/23/another-customer-of-troubled-startup-delve-suffered-a-big-security-incident/Discussion links:Anthropic's attack on secondary trading https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/12/anthropic-warns-investors-against-secondary-platforms-offering-access-to-its-shares/Vanta https://www.vanta.com/twistTimestamps:0:00 Welcome to This Week in Startups!2:14 Plaud: If your work depends on conversations — interviews, meetings, calls — you need a Plaud NotePin. You can check it out at https://Plaud.ai/twist and use code TWIST for 10% off!3:27 Immad Akhund (Mercury) joins to discuss $200M raise6:33 Mercury's origin story and path to $650M run rate9:53 Northwest Registered Agent - Get more when you start your business with Northwest. In 10 clicks and 10 minutes, you can form your company and walk away with a real business identity — Learn more at https://northwestregisteredagent.com/twist14:23 Stablecoins: where they work, why Mercury won't launch its own20:13 LinkedIn - Thanks to our partners at LinkedIn! Post your job for free at https://linkedIn.com/twist then promote it to get access to LinkedIn Jobs' new AI assistant.22:38 AI agents, and the future of money movement27:30 Why Mercury raised less this round30:11 Grasshopper Bank - Time is money. Don't waste either. Go to https://grasshopper.bank/twist and get an exclusive $500 cash bonus just for opening an account.42:48 Avi Patel (Kled) joins to discuss copycat startups57:06 Jason's verdict on YC's hacker culture & "appearance of impropriety"1:17:39 Sam Altman's $2M-in-tokens-for-equity offer to YC founders1:24:32 NYC hotel housekeepers cross $100K in time under new union contract1:30:14 Minimum wage, immigration & the case for raising it slowlySubscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.comCheck out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.comSubscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcpFollow Lon:X: https://x.com/lonsFollow Alex:X: https://x.com/alexLinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelmFollow Jason:X: https://twitter.com/JasonLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanisCheck out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarlandCheck out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanisFollow TWiST:Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartupsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekinInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartupsTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartupsSubstack: https://twistartups.substack.com

Interactive social media site Status announced Tuesday $17 million in combined seed and Series A funding, with investors including General Catalyst, YC, LightShed Ventures, and Abstract. Also, Stilta announced Tuesday a $10 million seed round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Other investors in the round include YC and operators from companies like OpenAI, Legora, and Lovable. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"If you're not tinkering with AI today, it's going to be a problem for you in the future." This week on Bricks & Bytes we sat down with David Niewiadomski from Zero RFI — KP Reddy's new venture backed by General Catalyst that's rolling up owner reps, advisory, and building data firms under one roof. Tune in to find out:✅ Why standalone construction tech software is dying as a business model✅ What General Catalyst saw in Zero RFI and why services beat SaaS for industry impact✅ Why owners should never pay a subscription to access their own building data✅ Why owner rep firms under 50 people are the sweet spot for acquisition Watch now on Spotify and Youtube.

Most VCs talk about ownership. Few actually build it. Neil Sequeira, Co-Founder and General Partner at Defy, breaks down the unconventional strategies his firm uses to average 17 percent ownership across their seven highest marked portfolio companies — and why that number puts them up against any early stage manager in the country.Neil spent 12 years at General Catalyst before co-founding Defy a decade ago. In this conversation, he gets into why 75 percent of their deal flow never goes to market, how they made their biggest capital call on April 1st 2020 when venture investment was down 80 percent industry-wide, and why the most contentious deal at the partner meeting is usually the one that ends up doing the best.This is a masterclass in early stage conviction, portfolio construction, and what it actually means to partner with a founder for the long term.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe talk about -- Why Defy keeps their partnership small on purpose, and how that directly drives better early stage returns- The April 1st 2020 capital call: how they deployed 20% of Fund 2 in the quarter venture fell 80% industry-wide- The three-bucket framework for evaluating investments, and why the founder bucket outweighs market knowledge and hard work combined- How Defy averages 17% ownership across their seven highest marked companies using strategies most VCs never think to use- The one early signal that has predicted every failed investment in their portfolio, and why they no longer rationalize past it---Timestamps:(00:00) - Preview(00:28) - Introduction to Neil Sequeira and Defy(02:05) - How Decision-Making Quality Changes as VC Firms Scale(05:54) - The Speed of Conviction in Large vs. Small Firms(07:20) - The Power of Proprietary Deals(08:52) - Neil's Most Formative Investment Decisions(13:25) - Why the "Person" is the Most Critical Investment Factor(16:39) - Case Study: When an Investment Thesis Evolves Significantly(20:40) - Evolving Portfolio Construction Across Different Funds(22:30) - The Impact of AI on Investment Strategy and Check Size(24:10) - Building Company-Creation Platforms (US Defense, Crypto)(25:25) - How LPs React to Evolving Fund Strategies(28:20) - A Contrarian Approach: Investing When the Market Goes Dark(32:39) - Initial Bets vs. Doubling Down on Winners(34:35) - How Defy Owns 17% of Their Best Companies(37:34) - Patterns in Failed Investments: Lessons from Hindsight(38:25) - The Red Flag of Founder Integrity Issues(40:15) - The Danger of Market Noise and Not Controlling Your Destiny(44:03) - Start of Rapid Fire Round(44:19) - Sectors and Regions of Investment(44:53) - Typical Stage of Investment(45:47) - Leading Investment Rounds(46:28) - Typical Check Size and Ownership Goals(47:38) - How to Connect with Neil and Defy(48:45) - ConclusionLinks:Defy - https://defy.vc/Connect with Neil Sequeira - https://www.linkedin.com/in/neil-sequeira-76739a40/Connect 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#VentureCapital #EarlyStageInvesting #StartupFunding #VC10X #NeilSequeira #Defy #PortfolioConstruction #FounderAdvice #VCPodcast #StartupInvesting

In this episode, Steve Liou, Founder and CEO of Clarium, and Dr. Steven Klasko, Executive in Residence at General Catalyst, join Scott Becker to explore how supply chain is emerging as a strategic driver of margin, total cost of care, and health system sustainability. They discuss why operational AI is delivering faster ROI than clinical AI, how better data and automation can unlock billions in savings, and why rethinking supply chain is critical to the future of healthcare.This episode is sponsored by Clarium.

The direct-to-consumer skin, hair, and and menopause care brand Musely will use the non-dilutive capital to super-charge customer acquisition. Also, Meta bought humanoid startup Assured Robot Intelligence to beef up its AI models for robots, the company said. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lucy Tyrrell, General Counsel at Wordsmith AI, joins Scott Brown to explore how in-house lawyers can evolve by combining legal expertise with technology, process design, and commercial thinking.In this episode of Lessons I Learned in Law, Lucy shares her journey from private practice into high-growth tech environments, culminating in her role at a fast-scaling legal AI startup backed by Index Ventures and General Catalyst. Sitting at the intersection of law and product, she offers a unique perspective on what it means to be an “AI-native” legal function—where lawyers don't just advise the business, but actively shape how legal work is delivered.Her first lesson centres on thinking like the business. Lucy explains why legal advice cannot exist in isolation and how understanding commercial drivers—often expressed through metrics—allows lawyers to prioritise effectively and deliver more impactful guidance.Her second lesson highlights the power of networks, both internally and externally. Whether navigating uncertainty, making career decisions, or solving unfamiliar problems, she emphasises the importance of knowing who to turn to and building relationships before you need them.Finally, she focuses on curiosity—encouraging lawyers to embrace new technology, experiment with AI tools, and develop “legal engineering” skills. Rather than waiting for perfection, she advocates for a mindset of testing, learning, and iterating—mirroring how modern tech teams operate.This episode is brought to you in partnership with Wordsmith AI — the legal AI platform built specifically for in-house teams.Guest RecommendationsSong: The Chain – Fleetwood Mac Resources & Links Mentioned in This EpisodeRegister your interest in joining The Lodge In-house Legal Community: https://bit.ly/TheLodgebyHB Legal Engineering Project (Slack Community for in-house lawyers): [APPLICATION FORM LINK] Wordsmith AI: https://www.wordsmith.ai/ Listen to the PodcastSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/ Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/4 YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/Connect with Heriot Brownhttps://heriotbrown.com/ About Heriot Brown: At Heriot Brown, we help lawyers find fulfilment in their careers. Beyond recruitment, we foster a thriving community of in-house legal professionals who share insights, experiences, and growth opportunities.Enjoyed this episode? Subscribe to Lessons I Learned in Law, leave a review, and share it with someone building their career in legal leadership.Chapters:00:00 Opening insight – Metrics, AI & modern legal roles 00:48 Scott introduces Lucy Tyrrell, GC at Wordsmith AI 03:39 Inside a legal tech business & AI-native legal teams 09:23 Lesson 1 – Think like the business 16:06 From private practice to in-house & startup life 20:48 Lesson 2 – Your network is everything 29:50 Career opportunities driven by relationships 31:31 Lesson 3 – Stay curious & embrace change 40:53 Hot or Not – KPIs, AI & legal team performance 47:21 Walk-on song, legal engineering & closing reflections 

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.

A structural shift is underway in the managed services sector as venture capital firms move beyond traditional software and vendor investments to fund MSPs directly. This change is exemplified by investments from firms like Andreessen Horowitz, General Catalyst, and Thrive Capital into MSP-specific companies such as Treeline, Titan, and SHIELD. The driving mechanism is the perceived profit potential at the intersection of advanced AI technology and service delivery, with investors targeting AI-native operational models rather than standard rollups or inorganic growth strategies. The episode's primary evidence centers on Andreessen Horowitz's $25 million investment in Treeline, marking its entry alongside previously funded firms Titan (with $74 million from General Catalyst) and SHIELD (over $200 million from Thrive and ZBS Partners). According to Speaker A, Treeline employs proprietary AI-driven service desk automation and reports resolving 98% of help desk requests with AI, altering the economics and labor requirements for traditional MSPs. Unlike rollups, Treeline is focused on organic growth, leveraging targeted acquisitions primarily for talent rather than client base expansion. Supporting developments include the parallel strategies of Titan and SHIELD, which also integrate Silicon Valley AI expertise and homegrown tooling to drive operational efficiency. While these companies currently deploy AI internally for service automation, Treeline distinguishes itself by offering customer-facing AI-powered MDR and compliance services immediately. All three firms reflect the shift towards vertically integrated models where software, service automation, and client-facing solutions are developed and deployed in-house, creating potential competitive pressure for both traditional MSPs and larger private equity-backed consolidators. Operationally, these developments introduce risks around increased pricing pressure, labor model disruption, and a potential skills gap for MSPs reliant on off-the-shelf tooling. The focus on organic growth and deliberate scaling by new entrants like Treeline signals that the transition for incumbents is not immediate, but the need for MSPs to evaluate their AI adoption strategy is acute. Relationships alone are unlikely to differentiate providers in the long term; practical safeguards must include closing operational efficiency gaps, building internal AI capability, and considering cooperative models to maintain autonomy while reducing risk of margin erosion or client loss. Supported by: Zero NetworksCometBackup

The Big Unlock · Dr. Stephen K. Klasko, Executive in Residence, General Catalyst & Board Chair, DocGo, Teleflex In this episode, Dr. Stephen K. Klasko, former CEO of Jefferson Health, Executive in Residence at General Catalyst, Board Chair at DocGo, Teleflex, and one of healthcare’s most provocative voices, challenges the industry to rethink its fundamental assumptions and move toward a more sustainable, patient-centered future. He argues that despite years of discussion around value-based care and digital transformation, true disruption has been limited because stakeholders remain unwilling to fundamentally change existing business models. Dr. Klasko argues that the healthcare system is broken, fragmented, expensive, and inequitable and that true disruption, like what Uber did to taxis or Amazon to retail, will demand that some players fail. He makes the case that the annual physical visit is a farce, and that continuous health narratives powered by wearables and AI companions are the future of proactive, personalized care. On the tech-provider collaboration front, Dr. Klasko identifies – founder ego, misaligned incentives, and EHR-era skepticism as the biggest barriers. He advocates for co-developing solutions, sharing equity, and building genuine partnerships. Dr. Klasko's message to healthcare leaders is unambiguous: stop turning things around 360 degrees and start making real, uncomfortable changes. Take a listen. This guest appearance was facilitated through conversations initiated at Health Tech Summit by Cornell Tech.

Episode 422 of The VentureFizz Podcast features David Fialkow, Co-Founder & Managing Director of General Catalyst. Entrepreneur, venture capitalist, philanthropist, and Oscar winner - those are just a few of the words that describe David's legendary career. As you'll hear from this interview, he emphasizes the importance of storytelling, which he originally learned from filmmaking, but it goes beyond making a compelling documentary. It is an often-overlooked but essential skill for every entrepreneur. Whether you are hiring, winning over customers, or raising capital, being able to align everyone with your mission through a powerful narrative is critical for success. Most of you are likely familiar with General Catalyst. They are one of the top VC firms in the world, having backed a "Who's Who" of tech giants including Stripe, Anduril, Circle, Airbnb, HubSpot, Snap, Canva, and Discord - just to name a few. In this interview, we cover a lot of ground, plus David shares lots of stories and interesting advice along the way, such as: What it's like to win an Oscar and making impactful documentary films. David's thoughts on the Boston tech scene. His long standing partnership with Joel Cutler (which I didn't know they met when they were seven years old) and the details on their entrepreneurial initiatives in the travel industry including building the largest tour & cruise business in the U.S. The story of how a donation to Children's Hospital led him to compete in the Ironman triathlon with just 90 days to train. How General Catalyst got started during the 2001 VC winter after dot-com bubble burst. The firm's myopic focus on founders and their approach to building a firm with long term, intergenerational value. Investing in pillar Boston companies like HubSpot, Circle, ITA Software, KAYAK, and others… and their thought process around expanding the firm to the West Coast. The importance of surrounding yourself with people who know more than you do. And so much more! Podcast Sponsor: This podcast is brought to you by one of the strongest longtime supporters of the local startup ecosystem, Silicon Valley Bank, a division of First Citizens Bank. With more than 1,500 bankers and relationship advisors and $44B in loans as of Q4 2025 – SVB delivers expert guidance, specialized products and a team that knows the innovation economy inside and out. Learn more at SVB.com.

How do you rebuild an entire industry that most people accept as slow, fragmented, and frustrating? In this episode, I sit down with Dan Lifshits, co-founder of Dwelly, to explore how AI is being used to rethink the rental market from the inside out. What struck me most in this conversation is how Dwelly isn't approaching property management as a software layer you simply bolt on. Instead, they are acquiring rental agencies and rebuilding the operating model itself, embedding AI into every workflow, from tenant communication to maintenance coordination and rent collection. It is a very different mindset, and one that challenges how many businesses think about digital transformation. Dan brings a fascinating perspective shaped by his time competing in high-growth environments at companies like Uber and Gett. We talk about what those years taught him about scaling complex, operational businesses and how those lessons now apply to one of the largest and least digitized sectors in the economy. There is a clear parallel between ride-hailing and rentals, both are fragmented, both rely on two-sided marketplaces, and both have historically depended on manual processes that struggle to scale. As Dan explains, "long-term residential rentals ticks very similar boxes" to ride-hailing, which makes it ripe for reinvention. We also spend time unpacking what an AI-powered rollup actually means in practice. This is where the conversation becomes particularly interesting for founders and business leaders. Rather than selling software into traditional businesses and hoping for adoption, Dwelly takes control of both the operations and the technology. That allows them to redesign workflows, remove bottlenecks, and deliver a more consistent experience for landlords and tenants alike. The result is a model where a single operator can manage hundreds, even thousands, of properties with a level of service that would have been impossible just a few years ago. Of course, there are bigger implications here too. If this model works at scale, it raises questions about how many other service industries could be rebuilt in a similar way. It also highlights the growing role of venture-backed rollups, particularly with firms like General Catalyst backing this approach as a new investment category. But it is not without challenges. Changing operational behavior, integrating acquisitions, and maintaining service quality while scaling fast are all complex problems that cannot be solved by technology alone. This episode left me thinking about where the real value in AI sits. Is it in the tools themselves, or in the willingness to rethink how a business actually operates? And if AI can transform something as established as property management, which industries are next in line for the same kind of reinvention? I would love to hear your thoughts. Are AI-powered rollups the future of service industries, or do they introduce a new set of risks we are only beginning to understand?

Jim Cramer and David Faber discussed stocks falling and crude oil prices rebounding — one day after President Trump's comments on Iran sparked the biggest daily gain for the major indices since early February. Another rough day for shares of alternative asset managers: Apollo Global Management and Ares Management became the latest firms to limit private credit fund withdrawals. Also in focus: OpenAI on Microsoft, sources tell David that Jefferies is not interested in selling itself, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth on Iran war impact, Nvidia's AI dominance, "Faber Report" on Nelson Peltz's Trian and General Catalyst raising their offer to acquire Janus Henderson.   Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What happens when a VC flips to the founder side and raises $13.8M to fix the biggest broken relationship in construction?In this episode of KP Unpacked, KP and Nick finally reveal what's been hiding in plain sight across 20+ podcast episodes: Zero RFI, KP's human-first AI-scaffolded platform company purpose-built to modernize the construction industry at scale. After spending two years in conversation with General Catalyst – not shopping decks, just iterating on conviction – KP was handed $13.8M and a mandate to solve the asymmetry of information that leaves owners helpless: architects billing by the hour, contractors burying change orders in in 400-notifications floods, and buildings delivered 80% over budget.The reveal unpacks everything: why Zero RFI and why now? why Zero RFI isn't SaaS (it's people backed by AI toolboxes), why scaling means buying 50-person firms rather than chasing enterprise sales, and why the owner's rep model is the only position with enough leverage to actually drive industry change. KP breaks down why BIM failed owners 15 years ago, why most construction projects run 80% over budget (McKinsey data, not hyperbole), and why his biggest technical risk is Anthropic releasing features that render what his team just built obsolete. The through-line? Technology has created deflation in virtually every other industry – construction remains the exception, and Zero RFI might finally be the answer.Key questions answered:How did KP raise $13.8M from General Catalyst without shopping pitch decks?What does "human-first AI scaffolding" actually mean for an owner's rep?Are most construction projects really 80% over budget?Why do owners suffer from information asymmetry against their own vendors?How does Zero RFI scale—buying companies or SaaS sales?How does Zero RFI become distribution for Shadow Ventures portfolio companies?Can you actually break the billable hour model in AEC?If you're an owner tired of 80% budget overruns and zero accountability, a VC wondering what happens when your partner becomes a founder, or a startup trying to crack owner distribution, this episode reveals the playbook for leveraging AI scaffolding to fix construction's most broken relationship.Listen now.BuildingWorks & Brookwood Sponsors

The Information's Ann Gehan and Catherine Perloff discuss OpenAI's retreat from direct e-commerce and its new ad tech discussions with The Trade Desk, and we get into Starlink's mobile expansion challenges in Europe with our reporter Theo Wayt.Baird's Managing Director and Senior Semiconductor Analyst Tristan Guerra talks with TITV Host Akash Pasricha about Broadcom's surging AI chip business, and Alexa Liautaud, Partner at General Catalyst unpacks the evolving landscape of defense tech investing. Articles discussed on this episode: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-tops-25-billion-annualized-revenue-anthropic-narrows-gaphttps://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-scales-back-shopping-plans-chatgpthttps://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-held-early-talks-trade-desk-sell-ads https://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacex-pitches-starlink-wary-telecom-firms-barcelonaSubscribe: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theinformation The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/subscribe_hSign up for the AI Agenda newsletter: https://www.theinformation.com/features/ai-agendaTITV airs weekdays on YouTube, X and LinkedIn at 10AM PT / 1PM ET. Or check us out wherever you get your podcasts.Follow us:X: https://x.com/theinformationIG: https://www.instagram.com/theinformation/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@titv.theinformationLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/theinformation/

Sam Jones started his career as a GS-7 cyber operator in the Air Force. Today, he's the co-founder and CEO of Method Security, a bleeding-edge, dual-use cybersecurity and AI company that has raised $26M from top investors, including Andreesen Horowitz and General Catalyst. In this BreakLine Arena conversation, Sam doesn't just talk with Zayn (CEO and Host) about cybersecurity; he talks about building for the business effect from the onset. Sam unpacks why his team chose what he describes as the “psychotic approach” of serving Fortune 500 companies and the Department of War from day one. Resilient software isn't a strategic choice but a structural requirement if the government and Fortune 500 are to secure their organizations. And what it means to design a company, technically and culturally, around the hardest missions first.“To become resilient, you need to test the whole of the enterprise all the time where it matters most.”This episode is about more than AI and cyber. It's about raising standards. Building teams with real conviction. Choosing the harder path early so the ceiling stays high later and for the long game.If you're a visionary founder or a purpose-driven top performer building the future with clarity, community, and access to the most ambitious companies in America, join us!Learn more about our Effects-Based Hiring approach here: BreakLine.org

Nvidia is working with investors, nonprofits, and venture firms to build earlier ties with India's fast-growing AI founder ecosystem. Also, General Catalyst's pledge marks a sharp jump from the company's earlier $500 million–$1 billion India earmark. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Europe's in a state of emergency — but when will we all wake up and recognise that?That's the question posed on this week's episode of the Sifted Podcast by Judith Dada, general partner at European VC Visionaries Club, newsletter author, mother and setter-upper of numerous side projects. Judith started her career in venture almost a decade ago at La Famiglia, the Germany-based early-stage investor, which later went on to merge with US megafund General Catalyst. She's now come full circle, joining forces with La Famiglia founding partner (and fellow former Sifted podcast guest) Rob Lacher at Visionaries.  Visionaries' portfolio includes plenty of companies that are on a tear right now — Lovable, Black Forest Labs, N8n, Solve Intelligence and Tandem Health — and their thesis, that Europe is in a fantastic position to shape the next wave of disruption in business, seems more relevant than ever.Amy and Judith sit down to discuss whether legacy SaaS companies can survive in this AI era, why Europe is in “a state of emergency” and what we can do about it, and when Visionaries will raise a new fund.Sign up to Sifted's daily newsletter: https://sifted.eu/newslettersCheck out Judith's newsletter: https://dadalogue.substack.com/This episode was sponsored by HSBC Innovation Banking.

With me in this episode is Henry Comfort, Co-founder and CEO of Geordie. Geordie is an AI observability and risk management platform designed to help organizations confidently and securely deploy AI models and agents. They raised a $6.5 million seed round last fall from General Catalyst and 1011 and were just announced as a finalist in the RSA Innovation Sandbox competition. Before Geordie, Henry worked as an executive at Darktrace, which was acquired by Thoma Bravo for over $5 billion in 2024. His career before Darktrace is even more unique. In the episode we discuss everything from security analogies for toxic gases in coal mines, enabling vs. controlling AI, the AI security buyer profile today, and more.https://www.geordie.ai/

Didero functions as an agentic AI layer that sits on top of a company's existing ERP, acting as a coordinator that reads incoming communications and automatically executes the necessary updates and tasks. Also, General Catalyst is in talks to lead Modal Labs' next round for the four-year-old startup, according to our sources. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, our hosts Telis Demos and Miriam Gottfried get into why the market still hasn't made up its mind on Kevin Warsh's nomination as the Federal Reserve chair, and why gold and silver trades fell on the news. Then Telis says he'll be looking at Coinbase and Robinhood's earnings this week to help make sense of bitcoin's falling value. Our hosts then break down the software selloff that followed Anthropic's release of new legal tools. After the break, Miriam is joined by Hemant Taneja, CEO of General Catalyst, at WSJ Invest Live. They discuss his investment philosophy in the age of AI. Taneja explains why he waited for a $60 billion valuation to invest in Anthropic and shares his view on why market bubbles can actually be a force for good. He also provides his view on how AI and robotics could challenge every human skill within the next 20 to 30 years. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, and Miriam Gottfried, WSJ's private equity reporter, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@wsj.com. To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of WSJ.com Further Reading Saying You Want to Shrink the Fed Is One Thing. Doing It Is Another. Wall Street Can't Decide Whether Kevin Warsh Will Be a Friend or Foe Threat of New AI Tools Wipes $300 Billion Off Software and Data Stocks AI Won't Kill the Software Business, Just Its Growth Story The Week Anthropic Tanked the Market and Pulled Ahead of Its Rivals For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ.com, WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.  Follow Miriam Gottfried here and Telis Demos here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Max Junestrand is the Co-Founder and CEO @ Legora, the legal AI company that has scaled to $70M in ARR, 750 of the world's leading law firms as customers and over 300 employees in just 2 years. They have raised over $200M from some of the best in the business including Benchmark, General Catalyst, Redpoint and ICONIQ.  AGENDA: 04:16 Why Does Everyone Think Harvey When They Hear Legal AI? 07:35 Why OpenAI is Toast? Switching to Anthropic! 11:47 24 Months: Which Foundation Models Will Win?  23:53 Lessons Scaling from Europe into the US 28:53 Do Americans Work As Hard As They Say? 32:20 Why Seat Models Are Not Dead in SaaS? 36:17 How to Use Competition To Drive a Fire in Your Team? 40:59 Is Legal AI a Winner-Take-All Market? How Does It End? 47:18 The Future of Law Firms: Do Juniors Get Fired? 53:19 How We Raised $200M and 3 Rounds with No Deck 57:21 Quickfire Round: Best Advice, Closest Mentor, Biggest Mindset Shift  

Episode 411 of The VentureFizz Podcast features Madeleine Smith, CEO & Co-Founder of Civic Roundtable. We all know that building a startup is incredibly hard. But building a startup for the government sector? Many would say that's insanely hard. The reputation of slow-moving bureaucracies, limited budgets, and legacy tech is enough to scare off most founders. However, where others see obstacles, entrepreneurs like Madeleine see a massive, untapped opportunity. True disruption often comes from those who come into the equation with a fresh look and a different perspective.  The result, an underserved industry that is hungry for modern tools to help them with their day to day workload. That is the origin of Civic Roundtable, a government operations platform purpose-built for federal, state, and local agencies. Emerging from the Harvard Innovation Labs, the company is already trusted by public servants at over 1,500 agencies across all 50 states. With funding led by General Catalyst, they are modernizing how millions of government workers across 90,000 agencies collaborate and achieve their mission. Chapters: 00:00 Intro 02:17 How Entrepreneurs Should Think About Adding AI Into Their Platform 04:37 Madeleine's Background & Early Career 05:24 Working at Mark43 07:38 Transitioning to Product Management 09:47 The Journey to Civic Roundtable 12:03 Customer Discovery and Validation 14:49 Initial Proof of Concept 17:04 Building the Government Operations Platform 20:14 Creating a Successful Company in the Government Sector 22:01 Achieving Compliance and Security Standards 23:25 The Benefits of Working with Past Colleagues 24:42 Funding Details from General Catalyst 25:42 The Latest at Civic Roundtable 26:47 Sales Strategy and Market Positioning 28:32 Fast Company Recognition 29:12 Looking Ahead 30:25 Advice for First-Time Founders as CEO 31:31 Building a Company as Non-Technical Founders 33:29 Advice & Encouragement for Female Founders 34:54 Involvement in Charitable Organizations 37:24 Personal Interests and Hobbies

Join Jaeden and Conor as they delve into the evolving landscape of work influenced by AI. Discover insights from industry leaders like McKinsey and General Catalyst on why the era of "learn once, work forever" is over. Explore how AI is reshaping job roles, the importance of strategic thinking, and what the future holds for client-facing positions. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on adapting to rapid technological changes.Get the top 40+ AI Models for $20 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiConor's AI Course: https://www.ai-mindset.ai/coursesConor's AI Newsletter: https://www.ai-mindset.ai/Jaeden's AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustleSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Building the Base, Hondo Geurts and Lauren Bedula sit down with Paul Kwan, Managing Director at General Catalyst, where he leads the global resilience investment team, recorded live at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley. Paul traces his path from reading The Hunt for Red October in sixth grade to becoming one of the original defense tech VCs, and walks through what venture capital actually is and how it differs from private equity. He discusses General Catalyst's 25 years in the space, including backing Anduril early on, and explains how private capital funds R&D for the next generation of defense companies. The conversation covers the economics of VC, common misconceptions about venture capital and technology development, and Paul's reaction to Secretary Hegseth's acquisition reform speech.Five key takeaways from today's episode:Venture capital funds operate on 10-year timeframes compared to private equity's typical 5-7 year windows—a structural difference that allows VCs to take a longer-term approach while defense companies work through the challenges of manufacturing hardware at scale.Private investors fund R&D upfront in the venture model, betting that a small percentage of portfolio companies will become large enough to go public or get acquired, a different approach than traditional models where government funded product development from the start.Re-industrialization requires investment across the entire industrial stack. Beyond defense platforms, success depends on building out manufacturing software, testing infrastructure, electronic supply chains, and energy systems to enable production at the speed and cost needed.Large fundraises reflect market confidence in future contract awards. When VCs invest significant capital, they're anticipating that government contracts will follow. If those contracts don't materialize, it creates challenges for the innovation ecosystem that funded product development.First-of-its-kind defense tech business models represent new market categories. These companies may be valued differently than traditional defense contractors, similar to how technology disruptors in other industries trade at different multiples than legacy incumbents in their sectors.

The massive round was led by existing investor General Catalyst, with participation from other returning backers. Also, Skild AI, which is building general-purpose robotic software, just raised a $1.4 billion funding round led by SoftBank. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Caterpillar is piloting Cat AI, a system of AI agents in one of its excavators built on Nvidia's physical AI platform. Also, Calacanis, General Catalyst's Taneja, and McKinsey's Sternfels discussed how AI is reshaping technology and the labor force. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Carl Quintanilla and Jim Cramer kicked off the holiday-shortened trading week with breaking news from Jim: Nelson Peltz's Trian Partners and General Catalyst to take asset manager Janus Henderson private in an all-cash deal valued at $7.4 billion. David Faber broke down new developments in the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery: Paramount Skydance has amended its $30/share all-cash offer for the company — in response to WBD's concerns about the bid. Nvidia joins the tech rally on a report stating the company aims to start shipping its H200 chips to China by mid-February. Also in focus: Micron's red-hot runup, holiday shopping home stretch, President Trump's $2,000 tariff checks push. Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hemant Taneja believes you can sneeze and reach a billion dollars in healthcare revenue, but that most of that revenue tells you nothing about whether the system is actually getting better.This week, Halle sits down with the CEO of General Catalyst and author of The Transformation Principles to discuss what happens when you stop treating revenue as the primary KPI and start asking harder questions about impact, incentives, and system change. They get into his “health assurance” thesis, what it means for a VC firm to buy a hospital, why “profit-only” capitalism has run its course, and how AI and new payment models could finally bend the cost curve instead of just inflating it.We cover:

Carrie von Muench is the COO and Co-Founder of Pacific Fusion, a company building the first pulsed-magnetic fusion system designed for net facility gain. Fusion has long promised limitless, carbon-free, dispatchable power, but only recently have breakthroughs—from ignition at the National Ignition Facility to major advances at Sandia and new high-efficiency pulse-power technology—shifted fusion from scientific aspiration to solvable engineering challenge.The Pacific Fusion founding team came together after these 2022 milestones revealed a credible, engineering-driven path to fusion energy. Backed by a landmark $900M Series A led by General Catalyst, the company is developing a highly modular system that can be mass-manufactured using accessible materials and domestically sourced supply chains. In this episode, Carrie explains why these breakthroughs matter, how the modular pulsar architecture works, why New Mexico became home for the world's largest pulse-power facility, and how fusion could reshape global energy, industry, and security. MCJ is proud to participate in Pacific Fusion's Series A through our venture funds. Episode recorded on Nov 19, 2025 (Published on Dec 9, 2025)In this episode, we cover: [13:28] Pacific Fusion's origins and founding team[17:54] The company's unique financing structure  [18:57] Why traditional venture models fail for fusion[25:42] Pacific Fusion's progress to date[27:23] What a pulsed magnetic fusion system looks like[29:15] The path from modular components to full-scale system [33:20] Looking ahead at Pacific Fusion's 2026 milestones[35:04] Why they're building in Albuquerque, New Mexico[41:29] The global race with China to commercialize fusion[46:24] The fusion supply chain  Enjoyed this episode? Please leave us a review! Share feedback or suggest future topics and guests at info@mcj.vc.Connect with MCJ:Cody Simms on LinkedInVisit mcj.vcSubscribe to the MCJ Newsletter*Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant

Tarek Mansour is the Co-Founder and CEO @ Kalshi, the leader in the world of prediction markets. Just last week, they announced their $1BN raise at an $11BN valuation. In total, they have raised $1.59BN from some of the best, including Sequoia, a16z, General Catalyst, IVP, Meritech, and more. They also last week announced exclusive partnerships with CNN and CNBC, marking their move into mainstream media and news.  AGENDA: 03:28 Why Did Kalshi Need to Raise $1BN 10:35 Why is Kalshi vs Polymarket Such a Fierce Rivalry? 20:44 The Future of Prediction Markets 25:09 Why Does Kalshi Partner with CNN When They Could Replace Them? 26:27 Why Did Tarek Fight For the Rights of his Early Investors So Much? 27:25 What Makes Alfred Lin The Best? 29:19 Does Having Sequoia as an Investor Change the Game? 36:58 Are Teenage Founders Today Emotionally Ready to Lead Companies 38:30 Quick Fire Round: Celebrity Investors, Relationships with Parents  

ICEYE has secured €150 million in new funding. NASA has selected two science instruments designed for astronauts to deploy on the surface of the Moon during the Artemis IV mission. Cosmonaut Sergey Ryzhikov to hand over command of the ISS to four-time space flyer NASA astronaut Mike Fincke, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Gerry Hudack, VP of Engineering at Rendezvous Robotics. You can connect with Gerry on LinkedIn, and learn more about Rendezvous Robotics on their website. Selected Reading ICEYE and General Catalyst partner to redefine space-based intelligence in Europe NASA Selects 2 Instruments for Artemis IV Lunar Surface Science Crew Swaps Commanders on Sunday as Trio Packs for Departure - NASA ispace and Kurita Water Industries Agree on Strategic Partnership for Lunar Water Resource Development SpaceX tells investors it is targeting late 2026 IPO, the Information reports- Reuters NASA spacecraft were vulnerable to hacking for 3 years and nobody knew. AI found and fixed the flaw in 4 days- Space Share your feedback. What do you think about T-Minus Space Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Zaid Rahman is the Co-founder and CEO of Flex.Flex is the AI native private bank for high net worth middle market business owners, headlined by it's 60-day interest free credit card for businesses.Flex just announced their $60 million Series B, as well as their new consumer product, Flex Elite, which pits it head-to-head against Amex for the consumer spending of some of the wealthiest people in America. It's products now spans from when a business owner first generates revenue, all the way to when they spend that cash personally.This conversation goes inside how the company scaled from zero to a $70 million revenue run rate in two years, and everything Zaid learned along the way.Thank you to Eric Bahn at Hustle Fund, Jeff Morris Jr. at Chapter One, Andrew Ziperski at General Catalyst, and Jared Thomas and Ewan Steel at Flex for helping brainstorming topics for the conversation.Timestamps:(1:44) Raising $60m to fix business finance(3:23) Flex Elite: Personal + Business banking(4:48) Jumbo shrimps: powering 40% of US payroll(9:16) The forgotten mid market business(14:01) “Flex fuels ambition”(16:08) How to serve entrepreneurs in middle America(22:58) Flex's 5-pillar product suite(27:12) Starting Flex to help construction companies(31:51) Using AI to lend to mid-market customers(40:22) Power of multi-product in fintech(43:53) Zero to $3B in volume in 18 months(44:43) Raising a bear market Series A in 2023(51:00) How referrals landed their first big customers(55:07) Flex's playbook for 85% organic growth(1:01:15) Dissecting various accents(1:04:22) Building a quiet luxury brand(1:09:33) Importance of customer happiness(1:12:43) Why CEO's should be the top sales person(1:13:58) Building lots of in-house software(1:24:33) PMF is like operating a popular restaurant(1:30:49) How to raise a debt facility(1:34:48) Recruiting is so crucial for startups(1:39:00) Why VC's hate lending businesses(1:45:14) Underserved vs Underbanked in fintech(1:48:02) Why business owners want personal + business banking(1:54:49) Acquiring Maza, leaning in to M&A(2:02:53) Most fintech companies look the same(2:08:35) Founder group therapy with Eric at Hustle Fund(2:11:50) The Thiel Fellowship's 10% unicorn hit rate(2:15:52) Lesson from the ruler of Dubai(2:19:24) Building Flex's risk underwriting engine(2:26:58) Flex's AI opportunityReferencedTry Flex: https://www.flex.oneCareers at Flex: https://jobs.lever.co/Flex/Basel III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_IIILinguistic TikTok account: https://www.tiktok.com/@zaydupreeLazy luxury: most worn shoes on private jets: https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/lazy-luxury-sneakers-are-these-the-most-worn-shoes-on-private-jets-7801be30Follow ZaidTwitter: https://x.com/zaidrmnLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zaidrahmanFollow 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/

The round was co-led by Salesforce Ventures and Anjney Midha (AMP), and saw participation from a16z, NVIDIA, Northzone, Creandum, Earlybird VC, BroadLight Capital, General Catalyst, Temasek, Bain Capital Ventures, Air Street Capital, Visionaries Club, Canva and Figma Ventures. Also, analysts will be watching to see if Thrive-owned firms actually succeed in building long-term profitable businesses using OpenAI's tech, or if the result is really just pumped up valuations based on speculative market potential. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Information's Finance Editor Ken Brown talks with TITV Host Akash Pasricha about the debut of his new finance newsletter and whether the current AI boom is an impending bubble. We also talk with General Catalyst's Pranav Singhvi and KV Mohan about their novel Customer Value Fund (CVF) that finances growth without equity or traditional debt, and AWS Director of Technology Shaown Nandi discusses how companies can achieve profit margins with AI as inference costs are expected to drop 90%. Lastly, we get into the current state of the creator economy, the shift to interest-based algorithms, and the importance of a sustainable business outside of social with Creator Ventures' Partner and successful creator, Caspar Lee.Articles discussed on this episode:https://www.theinformation.com/articles/soon-call-end-ai-boomTITV airs on YouTube, X and LinkedIn at 10AM PT / 1PM ET. Or check us out wherever you get your podcasts.Subscribe to: - The Information on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theinformation- The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/subscribe_hSign up for the AI Agenda newsletter: https://www.theinformation.com/features/ai-agenda

In this episode of The Gist Healthcare Podcast, President Trump signals that he's open to healthcare discussions with Democratic lawmakers as part of efforts to end the government shutdown. General Catalyst's HATCo has finalized its acquisition of Summa Health. And the CDC approves new vaccine recommendations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hemant Taneja is the CEO and leader of General Catalyst, the firm he has scaled over the last decade into one of the largest with over $40BN in AUM. He has been one of the most influential investors of the past two decades, leading early bets in Stripe, Snap, Gusto, Samsara, Grammarly, and Canva. He also played a pivotal role in Livongo's $18.5B merger with Teladoc, one of the largest digital health deals in history. AGENDA:  00:00 Introduction  03:37 Is Hemant a CEO or an Investor? 05:42 With $40BN AUM Is General Catalyst Still a VC Firm? 12:11 Has Trump Done More to Hurt or Help the US? 13:25 No One is Talking About the True Impact of AI on Jobs 21:30 Is Hemant Concerned by the Concentration of Value in MAG 7?  27:30 Has Trump Done More to Hurt or Help the US? 30:27 GC's Anthropic Investment: Upside from a $60BN Price  37:06 Do Margins Matter in a World of AI 45:23 Does Revenue Growth Matter in a World of AI  49:39 Why it is BS to Turn Down a Company Based on Price 56:06 We Have Invested $5BN Into Stripe Over 14 Rounds 01:00:02 VC is About To Be Flooded with Retail Investment: What Does It Mean for VC 01:08:51 “What I Learned Losing the Series A of Snap, Stripe, Samsara” 01:11:25 Future of Venture Capital: Walmart vs Chanel    

Host Gil Bashe welcomes Milind Kamkolkar a globally recognized healthcare & life sciences technology executive and venture leader with over two decades of experience building and scaling companies and market-leading capabilities at the intersection of life sciences, healthcare, and deep tech. He has co-founded and incubated multiple breakthrough startups—including ventures at Flagship Pioneering, RA Capital, Arch, and General Catalyst—raising nearly $500M in funding. As the first Chief Data Officer in global pharma (Sanofi) and a senior executive at Novartis, Milind pioneered enterprise AI transformations and forged strategic alliances with Apple, AWS, Microsoft, and Google. To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play Healthcare NOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen

Mishka Katkoff sits down with Pranav Singhvi (General Catalyst, Customer Value Fund) and Joe Wadakethalakal (PVX Partners) to unpack the rise of UA financing, a new capital instrument that lets gaming and app companies scale user acquisition without giving up massive chunks of equity.We break down:1. Why traditional VC or debt financing is often a poor fit for customer acquisition.2. The origins of UA financing and why treating cohorts as “assets” changes the game.3. The differences between PVX Partners' gaming-first model and General Catalyst's broader CVF.4. Success stories like Superplay's $2B exit, powered by UA financing.5. How founders should think about timing, risk, and capital allocation.6. Why CAC is the new CAPEX, and how EBITCAC could replace EBITDA as the real profitability metric for gaming and app businesses.00:00 – Guest Intros (Pranav Singhvi & Joe Wadakethalakal)01:00 – What is UA Financing05:30 – PVX Partners vs. Customer Value Fund15:00 – Equity vs. UA Financing: Which Capital Fits Which Stage?19:15 – Founders as Capital Allocators: Balancing Risk, Growth & Dilution22:30 – What Returns Look Like in UA Financing (Real Economics)24:30 – Scaling Beyond Balance Sheet Limits28:00 – When Is the Right Time to Use UA Financing? 32:00 – LTV Curves, Incremental ROAS & Product Readiness35:30 – Case Study: How Superplay Used UA Financing to Reach a $2B Exit38:50 – PVX Success Stories 41:40 – Managing Risk: Oversight & Skin in the Game48:00 – What Counts as CAC? Influencers, Celebs, and Brand Marketing49:40 – The Future of UA Financing & Cohorts as a New Asset Class52:40 – CAC is the New CAPEX: Rethinking EBITDA as EBITCAC57:30 – Why Tech Companies Look Unprofitable but Aren't59:00 – Advice for Founders Considering UA Financing01:04:00 – Capturing Market Share Before Competitors Catch Up01:07:00 – Final Takeaways & Closing Thoughts

Hospitals are under immense pressure: burned-out clinicians, outdated systems, and rising costs have made delivering care harder than ever. Tanay Tandon, founder and CEO of Commure, shares how his team is rethinking hospital infrastructure by combining AI, forward-deployed engineering, and a provider-first mindset. Backed by over $750M in funding, Commure is using strategic M&A and next-gen tools like ambient AI to reduce administrative burden, improve revenue cycle operations, and protect clinical staff.We cover:

Katherine Boyle is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and cofounder of its American Dynamism practice, investing in sectors such as defense, aerospace, manufacturing, and infrastructure. She serves on the boards of Apex Space and Hadrian Automation, and is a board observer for Saronic Technologies and Castelion. Previously, she was a partner at General Catalyst, where she co-led the seed practice and backed companies like Anduril Industries and Vannevar Labs. She was also a reporter at The Washington Post. Katherine holds a BA from Georgetown, an MBA from Stanford, and a Master's from the National University of Ireland, Galway. She sits on the boards of The Free Press and the Mercatus Center. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://americanfinancing.net/srs NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org https://tryarmra.com/srs https://betterhelp.com/srs This episode is sponsored. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/srs and get on your way to being your best self. https://meetfabric.com/shawn https://shawnlikesgold.com https://hillsdale.edu/srs https://masachips.com/srs – USE CODE SRS https://paladinpower.com/srs – USE CODE SRS https://patriotmobile.com/srs https://rocketmoney.com/srs https://ROKA.com – USE CODE SRS https://trueclassic.com/srs https://USCCA.com/srs https://blackbuffalo.com Katherine Boyle Links: Website - https://a16z.com/author/katherine-boyle X - https://x.com/KTmBoyle Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's show: Jason and Alex discuss the hottest tech and startup news: Grammarly secures a massive $1B investment from General Catalyst to fuel its AI ambitions and expand into deeper enterprise offerings; a DARPA-backed brain-computer interface startup emerges as a serious Neuralink rival, signaling renewed momentum in the neurotech space; and The New York Times signs a licensing deal with Amazon, suggesting that traditional media may be starting to find common ground with large language models.Timestamps:(0:00) Episode Teaser(1:26) Jason's take on Singapore's regional cuisine(5:50) Why founders should get permission first and more lessons from Udio, Suno, and Spotify(10:07) Oracle - Try OCI and save up to 50% on your cloud bill at https://w⁠⁠⁠⁠ww.oracle.com/twist(15:54) The New York Times and Amazon signed a landmark AI deal: what's in it?(20:18) Squarespace - Use offer code TWIST to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain at https://www.Squarespace.com/TWIST(25:36) Why is Grammarly worth so much money?(30:14) Notion - Try it for free today at https://notion.com/twist(39:15) How does Autopilot make money?(43:03) So how long until we all have a computer in our brain?(54:43) How much does revenue predictability really matter?(59:26) Laurene Powell Jobs and Jony Ive go FULL DOOMER(1:03:35) Perplexity, Samsung, and the rest...Subscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.comCheck out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.comSubscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcpLinks from episode:Udio: https://www.udio.com/Jason's Stolen Voice: https://x.com/Jason/status/1928995534276088151Autopilot: https://www.joinautopilot.com/Follow Alex:X: https://x.com/alexLinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelmFollow Jason:X: https://twitter.com/JasonLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanisThank you to our partners:(10:07) Oracle - Try OCI and save up to 50% on your cloud bill at https://w⁠⁠⁠⁠ww.oracle.com/twist(20:18) Squarespace - Use offer code TWIST to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain at https://www.Squarespace.com/TWIST(30:14) Notion - Try it for free today at https://notion.com/twistGreat TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarlandCheck out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanisFollow TWiST:Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartupsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekinInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartupsTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartupsSubstack: https://twistartups.substack.comSubscribe to the Founder University Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@founderuniversity1916