Podcasts about series b

Nick Turner is the CEO of Dreamdata. Nick is a seasoned B2B software leader with nearly two decades of experience building and scaling go-to-market teams, helping companies grow from early traction to tens of millions in revenue. Before stepping into the CEO role, Nick served as Chief Revenue Officer at Dreamdata, where he played a key role in shaping the company's growth strategy and expanding its presence in the U.S. market. He later transitioned into the CEO seat, leading the company through a pivotal phase of scale and transformation. Under his leadership, Dreamdata recently raised a $55 million Series B round led by PeakSpan Capital—fueling its mission to become the go-to platform for B2B marketers to connect data, attribution, and revenue in the AI era.  In this episode, we'll explore what it takes to step into the CEO role, how to lead through rapid growth and funding milestones, and Nick's perspective on building modern go-to-market teams in an increasingly data-driven world.

Tyler talks with Bailey Stockdale about their $13M Series B announcement. — This episode is presented by Ambrook. — Links Leaf - https://withleaf.io Leaf's Series B - https://www.agnavigator.com/Article/2026/06/11/bayer-invests-in-ai-backbone-company-leafs-series-b-round/ 

On this week's episode, Graig Suvannavejh, Eric Schmidt, Paul Matteis and Financial Times' Oliver Barnes kicked off with the biotech market, with the XBI in positive territory and 12 biotech IPOs completed so far this year. They expected the IPO window to remain open for high-quality private companies. The group also overviewed recent financings, including SonoThera's $125 million Series B, City Therapeutics' $100 million Series B, Ethyreal's $101 million Series A, and Summit's decision to cancel a $500 million secondary offering. In data news, the co-hosts covered Tango's combination data with Revolution Medicines' RAS inhibitor. They also discussed Incyte's acquisition of Vega Therapeutics as a pipeline-building move ahead of Jakafi's 2028 patent expiration and J&J's acquisition of Firefly, with the RAS inhibitor space expected to remain hot. The group also discussed GSK's acquisition of Nuvalent -- its largest deal to date -- for two late-stage lung cancer assets. Oliver added perspective on biotech deal leaks, following the Incyte/Vega deal and GSK/Nuvalent deals this week. In partnership updates, Novartis expanded its molecular glue work with Orionis, Lilly licensed an Alzheimer's candidate from AlzeCure, and Corvus supported China partner Angel Pharmaceuticals. The episode concluded with the latest in rare disease and gene therapy, covering Novartis' FSHD program, FDA flexibility, Rett syndrome programs, and Sensorion's exit from hearing loss development. *This episode aired on June 12, 2026. 

Most AI failures won't come from a bad model. They'll come from bad data.Shashank Saxena spent most of his career on the buying side of enterprise technology before founding VNDLY which was acquired by Workday for $510 million. He then joined Sierra as a Managing Partner before going full time as Co-founder and CEO of Pantomath, a data operations center for enterprises that are betting their future on AI agents.We discuss why data quality is becoming one of the biggest challenges in enterprise AI. An AI agent fed bad data for 12 hours doesn't go rogue. It just makes 12 hours of wrong decisions: rejecting insurance claims, issuing credit cards, or drilling in the wrong location. As more business decisions are delegated to AI systems, companies will need far greater visibility into what is happening across their data infrastructure.Shashank also shares the decisions that led to VNDLY's acquisition, the advice he'd give founders evaluating acquisition offers today, and why a Michael Jordan analogy continues to motivate him as a second-time founder.If you're building enterprise software, selling to large companies, or trying to figure out whether experience is an asset or a liability in the AI era, this episode is for you.0:00 - Trailer01:00 - How Shashank became a second-time founder07:20 - Where Pantomath sits in the data stack10:55 - How a broken Tableau report turns mission-critical with AI12:55 - Who Pantomath sells to15:35 - Solving for a problem that doesn't exist yet19:03 - How have founder expectations changed today?20:31 - Series B companies pre- and post-AI21:26 - The Michael Jordan example23:57 - How a repeat founder chooses investors25:10 - What value Snowflake adds as a strategic investor27:05 - Data is not an open category today28:34 - The astounding Databricks outcome29:08 - The reality of the $100 million ARR number31:48 - Will non-human workers 100x in the next few years?36:00 - How to protect data in motion37:26 - How comfortable are we giving full access to agents?39:47 - Where is automation fastest today?42:09 - Why entrepreneurs tend to like uncertainty43:28 - Why Shashank chose to be a founder45:48 - A customer-driven $510M acquisition48:32 - Employees vs contractors in any organization51:22 - Building from Ohio vs the Bay Area53:14 - Learnings from selling to enterprises56:31 - How Shashank raised from Tier 1 US VCs59:19 - Heads down or network as a founder?1:02:47 - First-time vs second-time founder edge in AI1:06:22 - Hiring as a repeat founder1:08:08 - How enterprise sales has changed1:10:52 - How do you sell for a problem that isn't visible today?1:12:58 - Best piece of advice1:16:27 - The only advice for a founder considering M&A1:21:06 - Position yourself to be capable of taking risks1:24:51 - What matters to an enterprise buyer?-------------India's talent has built the world's tech—now it's time to lead it.This mission goes beyond startups. It's about shifting the center of gravity in global tech to include the brilliance rising from India.What is Neon Fund?We invest in seed and early-stage founders from India and the diaspora building world-class Enterprise AI companies. We bring capital, conviction, and a community that's done it before.Subscribe for real founder stories, investor perspectives, economist breakdowns, and a behind-the-scenes look at how we're doing it all at Neon.-------------Check us out on:Website: https://neon.fund/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theneonshoww/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/beneon/Twitter: https://x.com/TheNeonShowwConnect with Siddhartha on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/siddharthaahluwalia/Twitter: https://x.com/siddharthaa7-------------This video is for informational purposes only. The views expressed are those of the individuals quoted and do not constitute professional advice.Send us Fan Mail

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. The pharmaceutical and biotech industries are undergoing significant transformations, driven by scientific advancements, regulatory changes, and strategic investments. These developments are shaping the landscape of drug development and patient care in profound ways. In recent news, Pfizer's CEO, Albert Bourla, is reconsidering investments in Germany due to proposed healthcare reforms. These reforms have sparked concerns about their potential impact on the pharmaceutical industry. This situation highlights the intricate balance between regulatory frameworks and corporate strategies, illustrating how policy changes can influence investment decisions and operational strategies within the pharma sector. The tension between regulatory environments and corporate interests is a recurring theme that continues to shape strategic directions within the industry. Meanwhile, heightened scrutiny over biotechnology operations is evident with Wuxi AppTec's inclusion on the Pentagon's blacklist under the Biosecure Act. This move reflects growing concerns about biosecurity and the necessity for stringent oversight in handling sensitive biotechnological advancements. Such actions underscore a global focus on safeguarding national security while fostering scientific innovation. Teva Pharmaceuticals is navigating restructuring efforts by laying off 250 employees at its Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients unit as it seeks a new owner. This restructuring underscores the challenges companies face in maintaining operational efficiency amid ownership transitions. These challenges are emblematic of broader industry dynamics where companies strive to adapt to changing market conditions while ensuring stability and growth. On the scientific front, Novo Nordisk's cagrisema and Eli Lilly's retatrutide are emerging as next-generation incretin therapies. Although early comparisons have been made, Novo Nordisk's chief scientific officer suggests it is premature to declare a definitive leader. This competition reflects the dynamic nature of drug development as companies strive to innovate and improve treatment options continuously. Additionally, Sonothera's successful $125 million Series B funding round for its bubble-based genetic delivery system highlights the biotech industry's momentum fueled by mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and partnerships. Such technologies promise to advance genetic therapies by enhancing delivery mechanisms, potentially transforming treatment paradigms for various genetic disorders. AbbVie's Skyrizi narrowly surpassing Johnson & Johnson's Tremfya in May drug ad spending underscores the competitive nature of pharmaceutical marketing. Despite a general slump in advertising expenditures among leading drugs, strategic marketing remains crucial for maintaining brand presence and market share. Increased M&A activity and partnerships are further bolstering the industry's growth trajectory. The resurgence of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and venture capital funding is fostering innovation and expansion within the sector, providing fuel for continued advancement in biotech. On the regulatory front, Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex received a new endorsement from NICE after a prior reversal. Such regulatory updates emphasize the evolving nature of drug approvals and market access strategies essential for pharmaceutical companies' success. Novartis' second deal with Orionis Biosciences worth up to $1.4 billion exemplifies strategic investments aimed at expanding research capabilities and addressing unmet medical needs through molecular glue technologies targeting challenging therapeutic areas. Conversely, Sanofi's decision to halt a Phase 3 autoimmune trial due to insufficient efficacy highlights the inherent risks in drug development pipelines. These setbacks emphasize the importance of robust clinical trial designs and adaptability in R&D strategies. Emerging insights into GLP-1 drugs like Novo Nordisk's semaglutide reveal potential antidepressant effects linked to gut microbiota modulation. These findings open new avenues for exploring psychiatric applications of metabolic drugs, although conflicting data necessitates further investigation. Overall, these developments illustrate a complex interplay of scientific innovation, regulatory dynamics, and strategic corporate actions driving the future of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. The sector continues to navigate challenges while capitalizing on opportunities to enhance patient care through advanced therapeutic solutions. The industry's trajectory promises transformative impacts on patient care through novel therapies designed not only to treat symptoms but also address root causes via innovative science-driven solutions. As these advancements unfold, they herald a new era of targeted, effective treatments that hold promise for improving patient outcomes across diverse medical landscapes.Support the show

I have always felt the best shabbat table talk on the Prasha comes from parents and children who know and are confident with the ins and puts of the details in the weekly Parsha. So many of my students never take advantage of this because they either never learned it or do not have the time to review it weekly. Enter the BEST SERIES! You are about to master the Parsha with four, fun and engaging quick Shiurim each week. give me 20 minutes or less and I will give you the Parsha! ENJOY! 

Parshat Shelach continues now with part 2 Enjoy! 

Parshat Shelach continues with Shiur 3, Enjoy!

The Finale of Parshat Shelach- Enjoy!

Autonomous vehicles may be the closest real-world example of AI operating in life-and-death situations at scale. Justin Norden believes healthcare has a lot to learn from how that industry approached safety, testing, adoption, and trust. This week, Michael and Halle sit down with the founder and CEO of Qualified Health, fresh off the company's $125 million Series B, to discuss why healthcare organizations need to think differently about deploying AI. Justin shares how his experience at Stanford, Apple, Waymo, and in healthcare investing shaped his view that health systems need AI infrastructure, governance, and workforce buy-in, not just another point solution.We cover:What healthcare can learn from Waymo's approach to safe AI deploymentWhat founders need to understand about building around EpicWhy health systems need to treat AI as a CEO-level priority, not an innovation projectHow Qualified Health is helping systems deploy, monitor, and measure AI workflowsWhy governance, safety, and ROI matter as much as model performanceWhy clinicians are right to be skeptical about AI liabilityAbout our guest:Justin Norden, MD is Co-Founder and CEO of Qualified Health building the trusted platform for health system AI. Additionally, he has been an Adjunct Professor at Stanford Medicine in the Department of Biomedical Informatics Research where his research and teaching focused on AI in medicine and digital health where he founded and still teaches courses on digital health and generative AI in medicine. Previously, Dr. Norden was Co-Founder and CEO of Trustworthy AI, a company focused on algorithm safety and trust, which was acquired by Waymo (Google Self-Driving). He was a Partner at GSR Ventures leading investments in healthcare and AI, worked on the healthcare team at Apple, and helped start the Stanford Center for Digital Health. Dr. Justin Norden received an MD and MBA from Stanford University, an MPhil in Computational Biology from the University of Cambridge, and a BA in Computer Science from Carleton College.—

https://novacut.ai/  https://genaimeetup.com/  Anthropic has officially closed a $65 billion Series H at a $965 billion valuation, nearly 2.5x its valuation from just 100 days ago. Meanwhile, funding is flowing across the ecosystem: Frameworks AI at $15B, Baseten at $11B, OpenRouter's $113M Series B, and Cognition AI's $1B Series D. NVIDIA went on an open-source super week with Nemotron 3 Ultra, Cosmos 3, and Nemotron 3.5 ASR. Microsoft dropped 5 new MAI models. Google released Gemma 4 12B, and Anthropic shipped Opus 4.8. On the benchmarks front, DeepSWE crowns GPT-5.5 as the leader in long-horizon coding tasks, while ITBench shows even frontier models struggle with real-world SRE incidents — Claude Opus 4.7 tops out at just 47%. Plus: Cloudflare acquires VoidZero to build the future of AI-native edge development, and Google is paying SpaceX $920M/month for compute. Topics covered: • Anthropic's $65B Series H and path to $1T • Fireworks AI, Baseten, OpenRouter & Cognition funding rounds • Microsoft's 5 new MAI models • NVIDIA's open-source super week (Nemotron, Cosmos 3) • MiniMax M3, Gemma 4 12B, JetBrains Mellum2, Opus 4.8 • DeepSWE benchmark: GPT-5.5 leads long-horizon coding • ITBench: Frontier models under 50% on real SRE tasks • Cloudflare + VoidZero for AI-native edge dev • Google's $920M/month SpaceX compute deal #AI #Anthropic #NVIDIA #OpenAI #AInews #TechNews #LLM     Funding rounds Anthropic formally confirmed the closure of its $65 billion Series H funding round at a post-money valuation of $965 billion. This represents a 2.5-fold increase over its $380 billion Series G valuation from February 2026, adding $585 billion in value in approximately 100 days https://www.anthropic.com/news/series-h  Frameworks AI raising at 15B valuation representing a near fourfold increase from its $4 billion Series C valuation recorded in October 2025 processing 15 trillion tokens daily for major production clients including Cursor, Notion, and Perplexity https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/fireworks-ai-eyes-15-billion-174609357.html Baseten is raising 1B at 11B valuation annualized revenue, which skyrocketed from $200 million to $600 million over a single quarter https://techstartups.com/2026/05/26/ai-inference-startup-baseten-in-talks-to-raise-1-billion-at-11-billion-valuation/  OpenRouter has secured a $113 million Series B funding OpenRouter has experienced exponential traffic growth, with weekly production throughput expanding fivefold from 5 trillion to 25 trillion tokens over a six-month horizon https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260526953416/en/OpenRouter-Raises-%24113-Million-CapitalG-led-Series-B-as-Weekly-Volume-Explodes-to-25T-Tokens  Further up the stack: Cognition AI secured a $1 billion Series D round led by Lux Capital and 8VC https://cognition.ai/blog/series-d   Model Releases MAI models: MAI-Code-1-Flash: A 5-billion active parameter model optimized for ultra-low latency within GitHub Copilot and VS Code. MAI-Image-2.5: A high-fidelity image generation model ranking third on global image evaluation arenas, outperforming competing architectures like Nano Banana Pro. MAI-Transcribe-1.5: A multi-lingual speech processing engine offering fivefold speed improvements across 43 languages. MAI-Voice-2: Natural audio and voice generation across 15 languages, available at a highly competitive price point. Web IQ: A search-grounding API engineered to directly compete with Perplexity. https://microsoft.ai/models/    https://www.peoplematters.in/news/ai-and-emerging-tech/uber-imposes-dollar1500-monthly-ai-spending-limit-on-employees-amid-rising-costs-50073    Nvidia has executed an "Open-Source Super Week," positioning itself as a dominant software and model publisher: Nemotron 3 Ultra (best US open source open weights model but behind china): A massive 550-billion parameter MoE (55 billion active) designed with a 1-million token context window, optimized specifically for high-throughput, cyclical agent loops. It achieved peak throughput rates of 400 tokens per second on day-zero optimized clusters. Cosmos 3: A physical AI world-modeling framework comprising 16-billion Nano and 64-billion Super variants. Built on a Mixture-of-Transformers (MoT) architecture, Cosmos 3 natively binds textual, visual, auditory, and physical kinetic vectors. Nemotron 3.5 ASR: A highly compact 0.6-billion parameter streaming speech recognition model pushing sub-100 millisecond latencies across 40 language locales.   https://www.minimax.io/models/text/m3  MiniMax M3: A 1-million token context model hitting 59.0% on SWE-Bench Pro and 74.2% on MCP Atlas, though noted for high token consumption due to intensive internal self-validation loops.   https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-tools/introducing-gemma-4-12b/  Gemma 4 12B: Google's Apache 2.0 on-device model, which utilizes an encoder-free architecture that projects vision and audio vectors directly into the text-token space, bypassing separate CLIP-style encoders to minimize local memory footprints. https://www.jetbrains.com/mellum/  JetBrains Mellum2: A compact 12-billion parameter MoE (2.5 billion active) engineered for ultra-low latency routing and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) sub-agents within developer IDEs. Opus 4.8 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/google-to-pay-spacex-920-million-a-month-for-xai-compute-capacity.html      Benchmarks: https://deepswe.d atacurve.ai/blog https://venturebeat.com/technology/deepswe-blows-up-the-ai-coding-leaderboard-crowns-gpt-5-5-and-finds-claude-opus-exploiting-a-benchmark-loophole (GPT 5.5 the winner in long horizon tasks) a highly complex software engineering benchmark focused on original, long-horizon tasks across five distinct programming languages. Comprising 113 chaotic tasks across 91 live, production-grade repositories, DeepSWE forces agents to generate 5.5 times more code and modify an average of 7 separate files per task compared to standard evaluations. On this challenging leaderboard, GPT-5.5 leads with a score of 70%, establishing a significant 16-percentage-point lead over contemporary alternatives I think older benchmarks where models reach ~90% accuracy can be considered saturated. Few percentage points don't give us any good signal.  https://research.ibm.com/publications/developing-ai-agents-for-it-automation-tasks-with-itbench  ITBench-AA, an evaluation framework focusing on live Kubernetes incident response and Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) operations. Comprising 59 live, containerized SRE incident snapshots, the results are remarkably sobering: every frontier model scored under 50% on successful incident resolution, with Claude Opus 4.7 leading at 47% and GPT-5.5 following closely at 46%.   Edge AI announcements: https://www.cloudflare.com/press/press-releases/2026/cloudflare-acquires-voidzero-to-build-the-future-of-the-ai-native-web/  The consolidation of the AI-native developer stack has reached the runtime virtualization layer. Cloudflare recently completed the acquisition of VoidZero, the development group responsible for Vite, Vitest, Rolldown, and Oxc, backing the transaction with a $1 million open-source ecosystem fund. This acquisition is highly strategic; as autonomous agents write an increasing proportion of production software, local development environments, compilation pipelines, and bundlers must be optimized for execution speeds that match agent speeds. Cloudflare's goal is to construct a localized, full-stack edge playground. In this sandbox, AI agents can generate, test, bundle (utilizing the highly parallelized, Rust-based Oxc and Rolldown engines), and deploy entire web applications end-to-end within milliseconds. This architecture completely bypasses traditional local machine container bottlenecks, enabling high-velocity agent loops to execute in a fully sandboxed, web-scale edge runtime.

Physical retail is under pressure to become as measurable and responsive as e-commerce. While retailers have spent years optimizing digital channels with real-time data, store teams have often had to make decisions with incomplete inventory visibility and delayed operational signals. That gap matters because stores still account for 80% of U.S. retail sales, making better store-level intelligence a revenue, margin, and customer experience issue — not just a technology upgrade. As RFID adoption matures and AI raises the stakes for cleaner operational data, item-level visibility is becoming a more important layer of retail infrastructure. Radar, a retail technology company that recently raised $170 million in Series B funding at a billion-dollar valuation, reflects that shift, pointing to renewed confidence in tools that help retailers understand not only what inventory they have, but where it is, how it moves, and how associates can act on it in real time.The shift is being driven by a practical question for retailers: if stores remain central to the business, how can they operate with the same speed, accuracy, and intelligence as digital channels?On this episode of Retail Refined, host Melissa Gonzalez speaks with Spencer Hewett, founder and CEO of Radar, about how retailers can make physical stores more measurable, responsive, and operationally intelligent. The conversation explores how Radar's ceiling-mounted sensors and software platform help retailers track inventory in real time, locate products inside stores, support omnichannel fulfillment, and use item-level data to improve store operations, merchandising, demand planning, and customer experience.Key highlights from the talk…Radar's role in closing the store data gap: Hewett explains how the platform counts inventory continuously and locates items in real time, giving retailers a clearer view of what is available, where it is, and how products move throughout the store.Why inventory accuracy is foundational: The discussion highlights how inaccurate inventory can create out-of-stocks, fulfillment issues, missed sales, and flawed demand planning. Hewett argues that improving inventory accuracy gives retailers better data for decision-making and future AI applications.How store intelligence supports associates and operations: Gonzalez and Hewett discuss how item-location data can help associates find products faster, fulfill buy online, pick up in store orders more efficiently, and spend more time serving customers instead of searching for merchandise.Spencer Hewett is the founder and CEO of Radar, a retail technology company building RF sensing technology to automate inventory, analytics, and checkout in physical stores. Since founding the company in 2013, he has led its evolution from an autonomous checkout concept into a broader platform for item-level intelligence, working with retailers representing more than $100 billion in annual sales. Hewett is also a Thiel Fellow and Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree, with earlier experience in RFID localization, signal processing, e-commerce technology, and startup development.

Anjali Sardana grew up in northern Virginia, studied biology at Georgetown, worked at Bain Capital — and then, without telling her parents, flew to India and founded Pronto: a platform building the world's largest labor organization network, starting with home services.In this episode of Unstarted, Anjali breaks down how she picked an operations business over a product business (and why), why she sees India's informal labor market as a trillion-dollar opportunity, and the founder mindset that got her through the messy, chaotic, sleep-deprived early days.She also gets brutally honest about faking confidence, hiring missionaries not mercenaries, and why she thinks most human limitations are completely made up.Chapters0:00 Intro — Meet Anjali Sardana1:20 Growing up in Virginia, studying biology at Georgetown3:10 The evolution framework that shaped her business thinking5:00 Product vs. operations vs. distribution — how she chose8:30 Why India? The labor-market thesis12:00 Moving to India with zero experience — and hiding it from her parents15:40 Fake it till you make it: raising a seed round at Bain Capital19:15 Running pilots, vibe-coding the app, and getting the first bookings24:00 The Kapil story — recruiting 30 workers in one afternoon28:00 Operating 24/7 with 5 people, sleeping in shifts31:30 Building culture: missionaries vs. mercenaries36:00 Urgency as a core value — actions beget information39:30 Conviction vs. market signals — how to balance both

In this episode of On Call with Insignia Ventures, join us on this call with QingGui Huang (Gui), CEO and co-founder of Konvy, for a wide-ranging conversation on what it means to build a health and beauty e-commerce platform for Southeast Asia in 2026. Now in its 13th year of operations and fresh off a Series B round backed by Cool Japan Fund, Konvy has grown from Thailand's leading beauty e-retailer into a regional multi-channel platform with stores and operations across Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The discussion explores how shifting consumer behavior, the rise of TikTok Shop, and the growing complexity of omni-channel commerce are reshaping the competitive landscape. Konvy's “matchmaking” thesis, connecting quality global brands with underserved regional consumers, is also finding new relevance as both inbound and outbound brand flows mature across the region. Gui also shares his perspective on AI's complementary role in e-commerce operations, the challenges of cross-border localization, and what a potential public market listing could mean for Konvy's next chapter.Timestamps(0:00): Introduction(2:00): Konvy's Background and the Evolving E-Commerce Landscape(5:00): Konvy as Southeast Asia's Beauty and Health Gateway(7:00): Pain Points for D2C and E-Commerce Brands(9:00): AI as a Complementary Force in E-Commerce(13:00): The Cool Japan Fund Partnership and Inbound Brand Strategy(16:00): Outbound Strategy: Taking Southeast Asian Brands Global(18:00): Omni-Channel Strategy: Balancing Online and Offline(21:00): Localizing for New Markets: Philippines and Malaysia(23:00): Building Global Infrastructure and the Path to Public Markets(26:00): Advice for Entrepreneurs and FoundersAbout Our GuestQingGui Huang, known as Gui, is the CEO and co-founder of Konvy, Thailand's leading health and beauty e-commerce platform. A US-educated Chinese entrepreneur who received his Bachelor's in Management and International Business from Purdue University, Gui built online fashion businesses in Beijing before returning to Southeast Asia in 2011, spotting the opportunity to create a dedicated beauty e-commerce platform in Thailand, where he had spent some of his childhood. He founded Konvy in 2012 with his co-founders, growing it from a 100,000 baht startup in a single rented room into the country's number one beauty retailer, carrying over 1,000 brands and 20,000 products across its own app, major marketplaces, TikTok Shop, and physical retail stores. Konvy has expanded into the Philippines and Malaysia and raised multiple funding rounds, most recently a Series B led by Cool Japan Fund, reflecting the platform's growing role as Southeast Asia's gateway for global beauty brands, both inbound and outbound.Directed by Paulo JoquiñoProduced by Paulo JoquiñoFollow us on LinkedIn for more updates: https://www.linkedin.com/company/insignia-ventures/?viewAsMember=trueThe content of this podcast is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, tax, or business advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any Insignia Ventures fund. Any and all opinions shared in this episode are solely personal thoughts and reflections of the guest and the host.

On this episode, Jhave and Scott tackle the intersection of artificial intelligence, theology, and human dignity, sparked by Pope Leo XIV's landmark AI encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. From philosophical debates over the "TESCREAL" ideology and Isomorphic Labs' massive $2.1 billion funding and how to navigate mundane office politics using AI ethics, which Scott tires himself with a real time conversation with Claude. References Davies, H., McKernan, B., & Sabbagh, D. (2024, April 3). ‘The machine did it coldly': Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-lavenderFuture of Life Institute. (2023, March 22). Pause giant AI experiments: An open letter. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/Gebru, T., & Torres, É. P. (2024). The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence. First Monday, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636Isomorphic Labs. (2026, May 13). Isomorphic Labs announces $2.1 Billion in Series B funding. https://www.isomorphiclabs.com/articles/isomorphic-labs-announces-series-b-investment-roundKurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. Viking Press.Pope Leo XIV. (2026, May 25). Magnifica humanitas [Encyclical letter]. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va

Craig Rosenberg, Chief Platform Officer at Scale Venture Partners and co-founder of Topo, joins AJ Bruno and Asad Zaman to take on the question every founder is wrestling with: can you still build a world-class sales team when OpenAI and Anthropic are handing individual contributors $10 million equity packages? Craig argues you do not have to compete head-on, then lays out the hiring profile to chase instead, the quota-to-comp discipline that keeps packages sane, and why founder brand has become the most reliable pipeline play left as CAC keeps climbing. Topics include enterprise AE compensation, where private equity is still winning the GTM talent war, the Topo playbook for events and data-as-moat, and a bull-versus-bear debate on whether Gong goes public in the next 36 months. Plus, a Quiz Pro Quo on the real customer counts behind Salesforce, HubSpot, and ZoomInfo. Key Takeaways: - Rather than try to outbid OpenAI and Anthropic for talent, build your own farm system and develop people into the role. As Craig Rosenberg, Chief Platform Officer at Scale Venture Partners, put it: "You have to change your hiring profile to a unique profile that's unique to your business, but then you gotta coach 'em up." - A resume from a hot AI lab is not a guarantee of success at your company. As Craig Rosenberg noted, "The person that is going to do well at Anthropic may not do well at Series B," so hire for the stage and the hunger rather than the logo. - On compensation, Craig anchors the package to the role's real value: "you pay for what your wedge costs… if you feel like you have to pay $10 million, then you have a huge problem and you gotta go back to the drawing board." If the number runs away from you, the model is broken. - With CAC climbing and most channels breaking down, founder brand has become the highest-leverage pipeline play. As Craig Rosenberg said, "The value of building a founder brand, when you look at the data, it's amazing," pointing to gains in both pipeline and deal size. Connect with the Hosts & Guests: Host: AJ Bruno, CEO at QuotaPath - https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajbruno3/ Host: Asad Zaman, CEO at Sales Talent Agency - https://www.linkedin.com/in/azaman1/ Guest: Craig Rosenberg, Chief Platform Officer at Scale Venture Partners - https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigrosenberg/ Topline is more than a YouTube Channel: Subscribe to Topline Newsletter: https://toplinemedia.substack.com/ Tune into Topline Podcast, the #1 podcast for founders, operators, and investors in B2B tech: https://www.joinpavilion.com/topline-podcast Join the free Topline Slack channel to connect with 600+ revenue leaders to keep the conversation going beyond the podcast: https://www.joinpavilion.com/topline-slack Chapters: 00:00 Introducing Craig Rosenberg 02:34 Can Anyone Out-Hire The AI Labs? 04:33 Why Craig Isn't Worried 06:52 Enterprise AE Comp Is Climbing 08:21 Founders Overpay For Star CROs 10:53 Why AI Reps Struggle At Series B 14:00 Hire The Slighted CRO 14:42 Quota-To-Comp And Attainment 18:45 Can AI Labs Sustain Growth? 22:20 Where PE Still Wins GTM Talent 27:17 Major Runs Reshape GTM 32:36 The Topo GTM Playbook 37:55 Quiz Pro Quo 47:45 Founder Brand And Rising CAC 58:42 Bulls and Bears

Insurance tech Corgi announced today an $106 million Series B1 raise, valuing the company at $2.6 billion, just three weeks after announcing a $160 million Series B. Also, Anthropic has closed a $65 billion Series H round at a $965 billion post-money valuation, marking what could be the AI startup's final private fundraise before a highly anticipated IPO. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stord offers a network of physical warehouses and inventory management software for e-commerce. It bills itself as a sort of anti-Amazon, giving brands "the speed to compete" while still owning their customer relationships. Also, OpenRouter has raised a $113 million Series B led by CapitalG. Its 5x growth in usage over six months indicates the multi-AI-model future is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Brought to you by:Heights: a design agency founded by Gabri Grassi, helping impact-driven tech companies sharpen their brand, attract investors, and scale their reach. Grab your free brand checklist here or reach out to Gabri to elevate your brand.****Subscribe to the newsletter:New Wave | Hugo Rauch | Substack****

"A lot of biotech companies die because they run out of runway. And they might have been successful if they had another six or 12 months."Baruch Harris, Chief Operating Officer at Pretzel Therapeutics, has spent over two decades navigating the business side of life sciences, from consulting and big pharma to early-stage biotech. With a PhD in biochemistry and deep experience in business development, investor relations, and corporate strategy, he has been key in guiding Pretzel from seed stage through a $72.5 million Series A and subsequent Series B financing.In this episode of the PharmaSource podcast, Baruch shares the strategic decisions and creative financing structures that have kept Pretzel advancing its first-in-class mitochondrial biology pipeline, including a lead program currently wrapping up Phase 1 for rare mitochondrial depletion syndrome and an early-stage obesity asset. From spinout strategies to non-dilutive funding and the company's recent acquisition of Rome Therapeutics, his insights offer a practical roadmap for biotech leaders navigating today's capital-constrained environment.Read more.

THIS WEEK IN REC TECH is sponsored by https://www.dalia.co/ SEATTLE — May 21, 2026 — Humanly, the AI hiring platform for hourly, frontline, and high-volume recruiting, today announced $25 million in Series B funding.  https://hrtechfeed.com/humanly-raises-25m-series-b-to-help-companies-hire-faster-retain-and-stay-fully-staffed/ NEW YORK — Saile, a physician-founded workforce platform targeting the bureaucratic bottlenecks of healthcare staffing, has emerged from stealth mode with $2.2 million in pre-seed funding. https://hrtechfeed.com/healthcare-staffing-platform-lands-2-2m/ LONDON — RemotePass, the global employment, payroll, and spend platform, has raised $17.4 million in Series B funding led by the EBRD Venture Capital, with participation from 500 other investors  https://hrtechfeed.com/eor-platform-raises-17-4m-series-b/ MINNEAPOLIS — Match2, the platform powering the Universal Candidate Profile™, today announced its integration with the Phenom Marketplace… This partnership brings Match2's Universal Candidate Profile™, Direct Talent Network™ (DTN), and Talent Connector™ platform into the Phenom hiring ecosystem https://hrtechfeed.com/match2-joins-phenom-marketplace/ Contrario announced its official launch. The platform helps companies at every stage hire faster by combining expert recruiters with AI agents that take on the operational work.  https://hrtechfeed.com/new-hr-tech-contrario-juicebox/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Researchers crack Apple's M5 memory protections with a kernel exploit. An IBM Security executive emerges as a possible CISA pick. Researchers uncover four malicious npm packages.  AI-generated “slop” floods bug bounty programs. Major healthcare breaches hit the HHS tracker, 7-Eleven confirms a breach, and chained OpenClaw AI flaws could enable full host compromise. Santa Clara County sues Meta over alleged scam ads on Facebook and Instagram. Monday business breakdown. Our guest is Jason Madigan, Director of Commercial Cloud Security at Booz Allen, discussing the tension between resilience and data residency laws. A fond farewell for a security pioneer.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest On today's Industry Voices segment we are joined by Jason Madigan, Director of Commercial Cloud Security at Booz Allen, discussing the tension between resilience and data residency laws. If you enjoyed this conversation, check out the full interview here. Selected Reading First public macOS kernel memory corruption exploit on Apple M5 (Calif) IBM executive floated for CISA director as concerns persist for agency (SC Media) Former CISA nominee Sean Plankey named US CEO of defense startup (CyberScoop) New Actors Deploy Shai-Hulud Clones: TeamPCP Copycats Are Here (OX Security) ‘Never-ending' AI slop strains corporate hacking reward schemes (Financial Times) Millions Impacted Across Several US Healthcare Data Breaches (SecurityWeek) 7-Eleven Data Breach Confirmed After ShinyHunters Ransom Demand (SecurityWeek) 'Claw Chain' OpenClaw Flaws Allow Sandbox Escape, Backdoor Delivery (SecurityWeek) Santa Clara County sues Meta over alleged scam ads (San José Spotlight) Exaforce raises $125 million in Series B funding. (N2K Pro Business Briefing) Peter G. Neumann, Who Warned of Computer Security Risks, Dies at 93 (The New York Times) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire 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? N2K CyberWire helps you reach the industry's most influential leaders and operators, while building visibility, authority, and connectivity across the cybersecurity community. Learn more at sponsor.thecyberwire.com. The CyberWire 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

Hollywood has a new favourite hero, and it is not a warrior, a wizard, or a spy. It is a founder, a CEO, a disruptor.In this episode, we name and explore a brand new film genre: the capitalist procedural. From startup biopics to corporate origin stories, business movies have quietly taken over cinema and streaming, and we want to know why.We break down what defines the genre, why studios keep greenlighting these films, and what it says about our culture that we are now paying to watch board meetings, product launches, and Series B funding rounds play out on the big screen.Has hustle culture replaced the hero's journey? Are we using business stories to inject meaning into capitalism? Or have we just run out of ideas?Topics covered: capitalist procedural, business movies, startup films, Hollywood trends, cinema culture, film genre, hustle culture, founder mythology, cultural criticism, film analysis Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into some of the latest news shaping the industry, from breakthroughs in cancer therapies to advancements in AI-driven drug discovery. Starting with regulatory updates, the potential appointment of Richard Pazdur, M.D., as the new FDA Commissioner is causing quite a stir. Following Marty Makary's resignation, Pazdur has emerged as a prominent candidate due to his extensive background in oncology drug regulation. Known for his commitment to accelerating cancer therapy approvals, his potential leadership could maintain or even amplify the focus on expediting innovative treatments for cancer patients. In a significant regulatory achievement, Beone Medicines celebrated the FDA's approval of Beqalzi, marking it as the first BCL-2 inhibitor approved for mantle cell lymphoma. This approval challenges AbbVie's Venclexta and underscores a growing trend towards targeted cancer therapies that offer new treatment avenues for patients. The oncology space continues to be fiercely competitive, with companies striving to deliver more precise and effective cancer treatments. Turning to clinical trials, AstraZeneca's Imfinzi has shown promising results in a phase 3 trial focused on bladder cancer patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These findings position Imfinzi as a strong competitor to Merck's Keytruda and reinforce AstraZeneca's strategic focus on expanding its oncology portfolio through novel combinations and indications. In the realm of genetic therapies, Regenxbio has achieved a milestone with its gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This therapy met its primary endpoint in pivotal trials, highlighting the potential of gene therapies to address rare diseases with limited treatment options. Such successes are likely to encourage further investment in gene editing technologies, which hold significant promise for tackling conditions once deemed untreatable. The FDA is also exploring frameworks to repurpose existing drugs for new uses by leveraging existing safety data. This could streamline drug development processes and offer cost-effective solutions for patients with complex conditions. However, this approach will need rigorous validation of efficacy in new indications to ensure patient safety and therapeutic effectiveness. Despite setbacks in its Alzheimer's research, Biogen remains steadfast in its efforts. While their tau-targeting candidate did not meet primary endpoints in a phase 2 trial, reductions in tau pathology and cognitive benefits were observed. This perseverance showcases Biogen's commitment to finding innovative approaches to tackle Alzheimer's disease despite ongoing challenges. On the operational front, Taiwan's Bora Group is acquiring Macrogenics' CDMO operations for up to $127.5 million. This move reflects a broader trend of consolidation within the CDMO space as companies aim to enhance their production capabilities and streamline operations. Quality control remains a critical concern as evidenced by Sun Pharma's recent recall of a chemotherapy batch due to glass particle contamination. Incidents like these underline the importance of stringent quality assurance measures throughout the manufacturing process to ensure patient safety. Moreover, Viz.ai has launched an AI-powered pulmonary care platform aimed at integrating acute and chronic care workflows. This development signals an increasing adoption of artificial intelligence in healthcare, promising improvements in diagnostics and patient management efficiency. AI continues to gain traction as Isomorphic Labs recently secured $2.1 billion in Series B funding aimed at enhancing AI-driven drug design models. Similarly, Charles River has introduced an AI-powered digital pathology platform poised to Support the show

The round valued the three-year-old startup at $725 million. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

EXCLUSIVE: ProcurePro just closed an $11M round and we got the founder on the mic first."Control your risks, control your margins."That's the line Alastair Blenkin, CEO of ProcurePro, kept coming back to on the latest Bricks & Bytes — and it's the bet behind their fresh raise.Procurement is the most underinvested workflow in construction tech. By the time you're on site, you're just managing the risk you already locked in at buyout. ProcurePro has spent five years building the platform to fix that — and now has $130B+ of construction spend and one of the largest pricing data sets in the world flowing through it.Tune in to find out about:✅ Why procurement, not site management, is the real commercial lever on a project✅ How ProcurePro went from a COVID pivot to Series B in five years✅ What investors actually wanted to see between Series A and B✅ AI bid leveling, live copilots, and flipping the model on subcontractor pricingWatch now on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube. #aec #construction #constructiontech #bricksandbytes #bricksbytes #ai #vc

Today we have Marlena Sarunac is a marketing strategist who helps early stage startups in complex industries turn forgettable products into unforgettable brands. As cofounder of The Company Advice, a fractional marketing and design studio, she's acted as a stealth marketing executive for health tech, fintech, and insurtech startups navigating inflection points. Before that, she led marketing for Fortune 100 giants like MasterCard and fast growing startups like Particle Health, where she built GTM playbooks, scaled pipeline, and reshaped how an entire industry talked about health data. Known for her #PlaybookNicely approach, Marlena blends analytics with bold storytelling to help founders clarify their message, tighten their product positioning, and build real traction. She's not here to dress up pitch decks. She's here to make sure your brand lands, sticks, and sells. Whether you're in stealth mode or Series B, Marlena brings the clarity and creative firepower to make the market care. Our website: https://www.thecompanyadvice.com/   The Friction Finder: https://www.thecompanyadvice.com/friction-finder   Our LinkedIn page to follow along our latest thought leadership + projects: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-company-advice   My LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marlenasarunac/ Ramblings of a Designer podcast is a monthly design news and discussion podcast hosted by Laszlo Lazuer and Terri Rodriguez-Hong (@flaxenink, insta: alohathletesco) LinkedIn Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ramblings-of-a-designer/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Ramblings-of-a-Designer-Podcast-2347296798835079/ Send us feedback! ramblingsofadesignerpod@gmail.com Support us on Patreon! patreon.com/ramblingsofadesigner  

John Graunt was a shopkeeper in 17th-century London who followed his own curiosity to a rather grand result. His work gave rise to the fields of demography and epidemiology. Research: Berke, Olaf, et al. “Celebration day: 400th birthday of John Graunt, citizen scientist of London.” Environmental Health Review. 63(3): 67-69. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5864/d2020-018 Britannica Editors. "John Graunt". Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Apr. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Graunt Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sir William Petty." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Apr. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/money/William-Petty Clark, Andrew. “Aubrey’s ‘Brief Lives.’” Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1898. https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/briefliveschiefl01aubruoft/briefliveschiefl01aubruoft.pdf Connor, Henry. “John Graunt F.R.S. (1620-74): The founding father of human demography, epidemiology and vital statistics.” Journal of medical biography 32,1 (2024): 57-69. doi:10.1177/09677720221079826 Eschner, Kat. “People Have Been Using Big Data Since the 1600s.” Smithsonian. April 24, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-have-been-using-big-data-1600s-180962949/ Glass, D.V., et al. “John Graunt and His Natural and Political Observations [and Discussion].” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 159, No. 974, A Discussion on Demography (Dec. 10, 1963), pp. 2-37 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/90480 Graunt, John. “Natural and political observations mentioned in a following index, and made upon the Bills of mortality.” Oxford : Printed by William Hall, for John Martyn, and James Allestry, printers to the Royal Society MDCLXV [1665]. http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/2356017R KARGON, ROBERT. “John Graunt, Francis Bacon, and the Royal Society: The Reception of Statistics.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, 1963, pp. 337–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24621352 Kelsey, Holly. “Sovereign and the Sick City in 1603.” Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Aug. 23, 2016. https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/blogs/sovereign-and-sick-city-1603/ Lewin, C. G. "Graunt, John (1620–1674), statistician." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. August 08, 2024. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-11306 Pepys, Samuel. “The Diary of Samuel Pepys.” GEORGE BELL & SONS. London. 1893. Accessed online: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4200/pg4200.txt Smith, R.M. (2008). “Graunt, John (1620–1674).” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_758-2 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, host Sandy Vance chats with Isaiah Granet, co-founder and CEO of Bland, for a sharp and eye-opening conversation about one of the most overlooked bottlenecks in healthcare: the phone call. Bland now handles 3.5 million phone calls a week, has raised over $100 million, including a $40 million Series B, and is backed by Emergence Capital, Scale, and Y Combinator. Isaiah brings a refreshingly honest take on what it actually takes to get voice AI into production in healthcare, why most vendors are just talking about it rather than doing it, and why the security risks hiding in third-party AI dependencies should be keeping every healthcare CIO up at night. In this episode, they talk about: Most people call a call center because they are at the end of the line and cannot solve their problem any other way The best voice AI systems conform to the caller, not the other way around Intake is the fastest path to ROI for health systems deploying voice AI for the first time Bland tracks emotional sentiment, call escalation rates, and a unique metric called utterances to measure patient experience quality Bland does not use OpenAI or any third-party LLM under the hood, meaning PHI never touches an outside vendor Health systems should demand that calls go live within 30 days and measurable automation within 60 days A single third-party dependency, three steps removed from a vendor, recently led to a class action lawsuit Always declare that it is an AI agent on the call; deceptive practices destroy the trust that voice AI depends on The CIO role is becoming one of the most important in any healthcare organization, as AI decisions multiply A Little About Isaiah: Isaiah values community, family, and impact above all else. He believes that building for impact is what makes life. In addition to being the cofounder and CEO of Bland, he also sits on the board of the nonprofit he founded, the San Diego Chill.

I'm sitting down with Jonathan Ronzio, who scaled Trainual from an idea to $30M ARR—while building a company known for its culture and still finding time to climb mountains, run marathons, and live a full life outside of work. What stood out to me in this conversation is how intentional he's been about building systems—not just in the business, but in his life. We talk about why most founders document the wrong things early, how structure actually creates freedom, and how AI is completely reshaping how companies build, sell, and operate. We also get into how he thinks about balance versus alignment, what changes (and what doesn't) after raising capital, and why the most defining moments in business are usually the ones you never planned for. If you're trying to scale without becoming consumed by your business, there's a lot here worth paying attention to. Key Takeaways  (00:00) Introduction (01:28) Summiting Aconcagua vs Closing a Series B (03:01) What Is Trainual and Why It Exists (03:52) The #1 Thing SaaS Founders Document Too Late (04:59) When to Create Company Core Values? (06:48) Why Structure Actually Creates Freedom (09:57) Which Processes Deserve SOPs? (11:43) How AI Transformed Trainual's Product Roadmap (15:16) Will AI Kill SaaS? His Honest Take (18:49) Figure Out How to Disrupt Your Business (20:38) Agentic AI and the New Outbound Playbook (22:34) The Exact AI Tech Stack His Team Uses (26:05) Data Security in the Age of AI (30:11) $400K in Credit Card Debt for FB Ads  (32:27) Balance vs. Alignment  (34:31) Why Daymond John Joined the Cap Table (38:05) Cultural Practices That Actually Work (39:48) Project Management & Communication Tools (43:36) How to Define Culture at Scale (46:30) Mountaineering Lessons That Made Him a Better Leader (53:08) Living an Adventurous Life  (58:50) Obsessive Compulsive Creative Disorder (59:43) Advice for Founders Torn Between Focus and Exploration   Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/q17qPXHSEC0     Let's Connect: Website | Instagram | YouTube | TikTok | Twitter | Facebook

Introduction What happens when a decade-long carrier executive decides that the best way to fix insurance operations is to stop advising from the inside and start building from the outside? Vijay Laknidhi spent his career at Travelers and Amtrust, sitting in the rooms where technology decisions stalled, procurement cycles stretched past usefulness, and AI pilots died in committee. Now, as GM of Commercial Insurance at Liberate, a voice AI company built exclusively for P&C, he runs what he calls "a Series A company inside a Series B company," tasked with scaling a P&L dramatically in a single year. In this episode of the Insurtech Leadership Podcast, host Joshua Hollander sits down with Vijay to unpack what it actually looks like to cross from buyer to builder, why commercial insurance is uniquely ripe for AI disruption, and what separates production-grade insurance AI from a compelling demo. Guest Bio Vijay Laknidhi is the General Manager of Commercial Insurance at Liberate, a voice AI company focused exclusively on property and casualty insurance. Before joining Liberate, Vijay spent over a decade in executive roles at Travelers and Amtrust, where he led underwriting, product, and operational functions across commercial lines. His carrier-side experience gives him rare dual fluency: he understands the internal politics, compliance requirements, and procurement friction that slow AI adoption at large insurers, and he now builds the products designed to break through those barriers. At Liberate, he operates with startup autonomy and carrier-grade expectations. Key Topics • The carrier-to-startup leap - Why a successful insurance executive would leave the stability of a Top 10 carrier to join a Series B startup, and what that transition actually demands • Voice AI in P&C operations - How Liberate applies voice AI to claims intake, FNOL, and policy servicing, replacing legacy IVR and manual call center workflows • Why commercial insurance is the AI beachhead - The structural reasons (submission volume, manual underwriting, broker friction) that make commercial lines more amenable to AI than personal lines • The demo-to-production gap - What separates an impressive AI proof-of-concept from a system that handles edge cases, compliance, and carrier-grade uptime in production • Selling to the buyers you used to be - How Vijay's decade on the carrier side shapes his approach to navigating procurement, legal review, and stakeholder alignment at prospect companies • Why every insurance leader must get hands-on with AI - The argument against delegating AI strategy to innovation teams or consultants, and why executives need direct fluency • AI-native architecture vs. legacy tech debt - Why recent startups like Liberate have a structural advantage over incumbents trying to bolt AI onto decades-old policy admin systems Notable Quotes -"I'm running a Series A company inside a Series B company. I own the P&L, I own the roadmap, and I have one year to prove the commercial insurance thesis." -"When you've sat in the buyer's chair for a decade, you know exactly which objections are real and which ones are just procurement theater." -"The gap between an AI demo and a production deployment in insurance is compliance, edge cases, and the willingness to handle the 2% of calls that don't fit a script." -"If you're a carrier executive delegating AI to your innovation team, you've already lost. You need hands-on fluency, not a briefing deck." Resources Guest: • Liberate: https://www.liberatetech.ai/ • Vijay Laknidhi on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijaylaknidhi/ Host & Organization: • Joshua R. Hollander on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuarhollander/ • Horton International (USA): https://www.horton-usa.com/ • Insurtech Leadership Podcast (LinkedIn Showcase): https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/insurtech-leadership-show Subscribe & Review If you enjoyed this episode, subscribe on your favorite platform and leave a review. The Insurtech Leadership Podcast is available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

Ships and planes carrying parts to the front lines would be vulnerable to attack. Defense startup Firestorm Labs thinks the answer is a drone factory that fits inside a shipping container. Also, BMW i Ventures has launched a new $300 million fund and will invest in early-stage through Series B startups in North America and Europe that are working on agentic AI and physical AI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Madelyn O'Farrell sits down with Ryan Soskin, Co-Founder and CEO of GoodShip, to explore how the company is transforming freight orchestration and procurement for large shippers. Ryan shares his journey through Coyote, Convoy, and Stord, and how those experiences shaped Goodship's focus on disciplined capital deployment, high hiring standards, and truly shipper-centric tools. They dive into why shipper decision-making is much messier than simple rate-based bids, how GoodShip connects procurement and day-to-day network orchestration, and the role of Laney, their new AI transportation analyst, in turning complex transportation data into fast, actionable insights. The conversation also covers why neutrality (remaining a pure software layer, not a freight participant) is critical to earning shipper trust, how the freight tech stack is likely to consolidate into a single operating system powered by AI, and what Ryan has learned stepping into the founder role while scaling GoodsShip after a $25M Series B. Highlights from their conversation include: Introduction and What GoodShip Does (0:29)   Ryan's Path Into Supply Chain and Early Career (2:34)   Learnings From Convoy and Stord For Building GoodShip (4:49)   How Shippers Actually Make Freight Decisions (5:40)   Connecting Procurement and Orchestration In Practice (7:45)   Launching Laney, the AI Transportation Analyst (8:52)   Human in the Loop and Goodship's Agentic Strategy (11:35)   Why Neutrality Matters in Freight Technology Platforms (13:08)   The Future Freight Tech Stack and Role of AI (15:00)   Fundraising, Series B, and What the Team Says Yes or No To (17:18)   Founder Lessons, Talent, and Financial Discipline (19:23)   Dynamo Ventures is a venture firm backing founders upgrading the physical economy. As intelligence moves into critical infrastructure and technology collides with physics, industry is entering a new era of transformation - the industrial renaissance. Born from the dirt and grit of supply chains and shaped by operations, not spreadsheets, Dynamo focuses on the complex realities of building in the real world. We invest in companies transforming infrastructure, manufacturing, logistics, transportation, and the systems that power global commerce. Dynamo works closely with founders who combine ambition with a bias to action, bringing a builder mindset to venture capital through deep operational insight, systematic pressure-testing and hands-on partnership. Our purpose is simple: to back the relentless shaping the industrial renaissance. Learn more at  www.dynamo.vc Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Predictable B2B Growth, Javier sits down with Nick Turner, CEO of Dreamdata, to break down what it really takes to build predictable growth in today's B2B landscape.Nick shares lessons from leading Dreamdata through a $55M Series B raise, including why focus—not expansion—is the key to scaling, and the metrics that actually matter to investors: growth rate, gross retention, and burn efficiency.They also dive into the reality behind AI hype, why most companies misunderstand its role in go-to-market, and how businesses should think about delivering real customer value instead of chasing buzzwords.The conversation explores the growing importance of brand, the long B2B buying cycle, and why over-reliance on short-term demand generation can quietly kill pipeline. Nick also challenges how sales and marketing teams use automation, emphasizing that while marketers can scale communication, sales still depends on genuine human interaction.At its core, this episode is about cutting through noise—focusing on the right customers, solving real problems, and building a growth engine that's actually sustainable.Key Topics and TakeawaysFundraising strategies for Series BThe role of AI in SaaS growthImportance of customer feedback and focusPredictability in growth metrics is crucial for Series B success.AI is a tool to deliver value, not a buzzword to chase.Focus on a specific market segment to dominate before expanding.Listening to customers is the most reliable way to build products.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Nick Turner and Dream Data01:51 Fundraising Journey and Predictability Metrics04:47 The Role of AI in Business07:55 Listening to Customers and Market Feedback11:20 Navigating Investor Conversations13:11 Defining Predictable Growth16:27 Focus and Market Positioning20:37 Metrics for Success and Burn Multiple22:44 The 30-Day Blackout Challenge23:45 The Sales Cycle and Brand Awareness26:34 Marketing and Sales Alignment29:43 The Evolving Role of Sales32:43 AI in Marketing vs. Sales39:23 Customer-Centric Growth StrategiesResources & LinksDream Data - https://dreamdata.ioNick Turner LinkedIn - https://linkedin.com/in/nickturnerChet Holmes - The Ultimate Sales Machine - https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Sales-Machine-Target-Profits/dp/1591842158Send us Fan Mail Thanks for listening to Predictable B2B Growth.Want predictable pipeline (not random acts of marketing)? Run the Predictable Pipeline Diagnostic (15 min): https://boldermediasolutions.com/pipeline Subscribe to the newsletter: https://boldermediasolutions.com/newsletter Book a strategy call: https://boldermediasolutions.com/strategyMore episodes + show notes: https://boldermediasolutions.com/podcastConnect with Javier:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/javierlozanojr/ Website: https://boldermediasolutions.comIf the show helps, follow + leave a rating/review.

Latin America is the third-largest fintech and payments market in the world — bigger than India, behind only the US and China. Gastón Irigoyen is Co-Founder and CEO of Pomelo, the fintech infrastructure company powering card issuing and processing for banks, fintechs, and global enterprises across eight markets including Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Panama. Pomelo is backed by Index Ventures, Insight Partners, Kaszek, Monashees, and most recently Adams Street Partners in their first-ever Latin American investment.In this episode of The J Curve, Gastón unpacks the contrarian playbook behind Pomelo: why the team went regional from day zero on a $10M seed round instead of nailing one market first, how they built a "plug and play" hiring engine that's stayed at 90%+ since founding, why they tripled revenue without adding headcount, and what it actually takes to win enterprise customers like BBVA, Santander, Bci, Bancolombia, Binance, and Bybit when nobody trusts an infrastructure startup. He also shares the Series B-to-Series C lessons most founders never document — including the end-of-year memo that turned rejections into investor trust — and his framework for the AI transformation a five-year-old company is now being forced to run.This is a masterclass on regional-by-design strategy, B2B fintech go-to-market, founder-led fundraising in down markets, and building world-class companies from Latin America for the world.Subscribe to The J Curve Insider newsletter for deeper insights and follow Olga on LinkedIn and Instagram.

This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Andrew Thompson, CTO of Orbital, about why legal AI built for a specific practice area has a strong claim in a market crowded by general-purpose models. Thompson explains how Orbital focuses on real estate law, using AI, spatial intelligence, and legal workflow design to support transactions involving property portfolios, title review, survey analysis, and complex documentation. With more than 200,000 property transactions processed and a major $60 million, Series B investment fueling its U.S. expansion, Orbital sits at the center of the debate over whether the future of legal AI belongs to broad model platforms or tools built for the messy details of actual legal work.Thompson's path into legal technology brings a practical operator's mindset to the conversation. Before Orbital, he worked across software, fintech, proptech, and real estate marketplaces, where speed, accuracy, and operational friction shaped business outcomes. That background informs his view that successful legal AI starts with the work itself rather than the model alone. For Orbital, the key is teaching AI to think like a real estate lawyer at the right level of abstraction, then pairing the model with domain-specific tools, data, and workflows.The conversation gets especially interesting when Thompson walks through Orbital's use of spatial intelligence. Real estate law often turns written legal descriptions, old maps, title documents, surveys, and boundaries into high-stakes decisions about physical land. Thompson explains the challenge of moving from words on a page to points, lines, curves, and property boundaries on a map. This leads to a broader discussion of large language models, visual language models, OCR, and classical machine learning, with Thompson making clear that the best current systems still require a toolbox rather than blind faith in one model.We also explore Thompson's concept of the “prompt tax,” the hidden maintenance burden created when model behavior changes faster than product teams expect. Thompson describes Orbital's mantra of “betting on the model,” which means building for where AI capabilities are heading while still delivering value today. He separates durable domain expertise from brittle prompt tricks, arguing that legal AI companies need reusable legal knowledge, strong evaluation habits, and a willingness to rebuild assumptions as models improve.Looking ahead, Thompson sees the impact of AI arriving faster than the standard three-to-five-year forecast. He points to software engineering as an early signal for what legal work might experience next, with professionals increasingly orchestrating humans and AI agents together. The billable hour, client value, accountability, empathy, and judgment all come under pressure as AI handles more cognitive labor. For real estate lawyers and legal technologists, Thompson's message is direct: the winners will be those who understand the work deeply, build with technical humility, and know when the map matters as much as the document.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Transcript:

Alex spent two years building AirOps nights and weekends during the pandemic before raising a single dollar. A chance conversation with Sam Altman—while walking down the street during SF Pride—sent him down the LLM rabbit hole months before ChatGPT existed. He pivoted his product toward AI, picked marketers as his customer, and never looked back.In this episode, Alex breaks down why he picked marketers over every other AI use case after watching them build 80-step workflows on his platform, the consultative sales motion that converts almost every pilot to annual at $60K–$250K ACVs, and why positioning—not product—was the unlock that took AirOps from $1M to $13M ARR.Why You Should ListenWhy picking the highest-taste customer is more important than picking the biggest market.How proof-point-driven outbound gets you past the "nobody's heard of you" problem.Why the founder-to-seller handoff is a forcing function for focus—and when to make it.How a consultative, education-led sale converts almost every pilot to annual contract.Keywords startup podcast, startup podcast for founders, product market fit, finding pmf, AI marketing, content engineering, SEO, AEO, AI search, enterprise sales, SaaS growth, AirOps, Alex Halliday, GreylockChapters00:00:00 Intro00:03:06 Two Years in the Idea Maze00:06:51 Why He Picked Marketers Over Everyone Else00:14:36 What Best-in-Class Content Looks Like Now00:25:42 From $1M to $13M ARR00:28:29 Building a Repeatable Sales Machine00:36:15 Competing in the Hottest AI Category00:38:44 The Moment of True Product Market FitSend me a message to let me know what you think!

On this episode of r-House, your host, Peter Hunt, welcomes Sarah Tanbakuchi-Ripa, CEO of the 43North Foundation!Together, Peter and Sarah discuss a variety of topics, including talent recruitment & development, the tech community in WNY, the future of AI in tech & STEM, Series B & the Venture Studio, creating meaningful connections in the post-pandemic workforce and more.

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.

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

This content is for informational and entertainment purposes only, you should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.----------------------------------------Most impact funds operate at the margins of traditional finance. The Citi Impact Fund operates from inside one of the largest banks in the world. That's a different kind of leverage.Meredith Shields manages a $500 million carve-out from Citi's balance sheet, deployed exclusively into double bottom line companies.In this episode, she covers how the fund defines impact, why it moved to Series B investing, and what she's watching in sectors like care, education, and financial resilience. She also names names, rolling through more portfolio companies than most guests manage in an hour. ----------------------------------------Investing in Impact is powered by Causeartist, a nonprofit media company dedicated to bridging the gap between capital and culture by spotlighting founders, investors, and organizations reimagining how business can serve people and the planet.Through storytelling, events, and open-access education, Causeartist helps create a shared language of impact, inspiring more founders to build with purpose and more funders to invest with intention.By amplifying ideas and innovations across industries, Causeartist transforms awareness into action and cultivates a community where paying it forward is part of the foundation for growth.

Wie man Hardware, Series B und Geburt unter einen Hut bekommt

Swalwell drops out of California Governor's race. Trump blockade to take effect 10A ET today. You can end DoomScrolling brain rot in two weeks. Despite their denials, left acknowledges that illegal aliens have been getting welfare. Final order of removal has just been issued for Mahmoud Khalil after he LOST his appeal in court. "British" nationals with middle eastern names arrested at Northern border. Pacers insufferable season is over. Today’s Popcorn Moment: Trump - Pope Feud. Today on the Marketplace: Pizza King Light Box. Monroe County not playing nice with ICE. Blockade of Iranian Ports Blockade of Iranian Ports. It's going to be an interesting week. Iron Nation launches $60 million second fund as it expands into full-scale VC. Indiana anchors the new fund with a $15M commitment as the post-October 7 investor backs Israeli startups from Seed to Series B. Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. TV Theme Song: Redemption Monday - All My Children See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into a series of exciting and transformative updates shaping our industry. Let's begin with the departure of a significant figure in pharmaceutical advocacy. Steven Ubl's exit as CEO of PhRMA marks a noteworthy change after over a decade at the helm. His leadership has been pivotal in advocating for policies that support pharmaceutical innovation and patient access, and his departure could herald new shifts in policy stances and lobbying strategies. This change comes at a time when the industry faces evolving regulatory landscapes and demands for more balanced approaches in drug pricing and healthcare access. Speaking of regulatory dynamics, AbbVie's legal challenge against the federal government's 340B drug discount program highlights ongoing tensions between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory bodies. The lawsuit argues that current guidance is outdated, emphasizing the necessity for reforms that balance healthcare provider cost savings with fair pricing strategies for manufacturers. This case underscores the complex interplay between cost management and ensuring sustainable drug pricing frameworks. In the realm of scientific innovation, Ionis Pharmaceuticals' Dawnzera has emerged victorious in the 2026 Drug Name Tournament. This achievement not only reflects the competitive nature of drug naming but also underscores broader trends in branding strategies that significantly impact market penetration and consumer recognition. As we look to acquisition news, Garda Therapeutics' acquisition of Assertio for $125 million illustrates the ongoing consolidation trend within biotech, where companies are strategically expanding their therapeutic portfolios through acquisitions to enhance market presence. Globally, Shionogi's collaboration with BARDA, resulting in an initial $119 million funding to establish a U.S.-based antibiotic manufacturing plant, is a strategic move in response to rising antimicrobial resistance concerns. This initiative not only strengthens antibiotic production capabilities but also aligns with broader public health priorities and domestic manufacturing policies crucial for addressing global health challenges. Let's shift our focus to technological advancements spearheading innovation within our industry. Roche has invested $20 million in C4 Therapeutics' antibody-targeted protein degraders, emphasizing a commitment to novel therapeutic modalities that target disease pathways with precision. This investment also signifies a strategic pivot towards therapeutic modalities targeting previously undruggable proteins, potentially revolutionizing targeted therapies by introducing new treatment options for diseases resistant to conventional therapeutics. Similarly, Boehringer Ingelheim's restructuring of marketing rights for Click Therapeutics' digital treatment reflects an increased integration of digital solutions into traditional therapeutic paradigms—an evolution that's reshaping how treatments are delivered and managed. Avalyn Pharma's plans to launch an IPO to fund Phase 3 trials of inhaled versions of approved respiratory drugs highlight the industry's pursuit of innovative delivery systems designed to enhance patient compliance and therapeutic efficacy. This represents an important trend of repurposing drugs with novel delivery methods to boost efficacy and patient compliance—a strategy gaining traction across various disease areas. In oncology, Sidewinder Therapeutics has secured $137 million in Series B funding for its bispecific antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). These ADCs target dual receptors on cancer cells, promising enhanced specificity and reduced off-target effects—a critical advancement towards more effective and safer cancer therapies. Finally, we turn our attentiSupport the show

- Rocketlane, founded by Srikrishnan Ganesan, spent its first year deeply researching the professional services automation (PSA) space, interviewing over 170 prospects and building conviction around unmet needs for customer-facing project management. - The team identified a key pain point: companies struggled with the gap between contracted and live ARR, making effective onboarding and project delivery a board-level priority, especially for mid-market and upmarket tech companies. - Rocketlane differentiated itself by building an all-in-one PSA platform tailored for services teams, integrating project management, customer collaboration, project accounting, and new AI-powered features like Nitro to automate and execute services work. - Early traction came from targeting Series B+ tech companies and leveraging community-building, with their first paying customer coming via a VC referral and subsequent growth fueled by a successful Product Hunt launch. - Rocketlane has raised a total of $105 million from investors including Insight Partners, 8VC, Matrix Partners India, and Nexus Venture Partners, with the latest $60M Series C led by Insight Partners.

BRADY WELLER discusses the intricacies of QSBS rollovers, including eligibility, timing, and strategic planning for founders and investors. The goal is to help the listener maximize tax benefits and navigate the legal complexities of this powerful tool. https://youtu.be/gvQ0ZskvWVI QSBS, tax exemption, startup founders, rollover, legal structuring, investment strategy, tax planning, startup exit, C corporation, Key Topics QSBS eligibility and benefits Challenges in executing rollovers Legal and tax considerations for founders Timing and risk management in rollovers Strategic structuring for maximum benefit “QSBS ROLLOVERS” Sound Bites “60 days is a very short window for founders.” “Rollover continues your holding period clock.” “Partial rollovers are common for founders.” Chapters 00:00 Understanding QSBS and Its Benefits 03:07 Challenges for Founders in QSBS Compliance 05:54 Advising Founders on QSBS Rollovers 08:57 Structuring New Ventures for QSBS Eligibility 12:00 Navigating QSBS for Tech and Non-Tech Founders 14:54 Investor Considerations in QSBS Transactions 17:46 State-Specific QSBS Regulations and Planning 20:57 Future of QSBS and Strategic Planning Resources Brady Weller on LinkedIn qsbsrollover.com qsbsreference.com Frazer Rice and Michael Arlein discuss the nuts and bolts of 1202 QSBS Features for Founders Guest links LinkedIn Transcript Frazer Rice (00:01.314)Welcome aboard, Brady. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (00:03.043)Hey, Frazer, thanks for having me. Frazer Rice (00:04.738)Well, you are the nice compliment to a piece I just did with Michael Arlene on QSBS. We covered some of the nuts and bolts around 1202. You come at it from a little bit different angle. It’s usually where people, founders especially, have issues sort of complying with things like the three and five year rule. And otherwise really maximizing the capability of the rollover and the tax significance for it. Tell us a little bit about who benefits and what you do here. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (00:35.107)Yeah, QSBS is. by far the biggest tax exemption available to individual taxpayers in the U.S. So it’s been something that hasn’t been up. I should say there’s not a massive advisory network around it. So it’s not something that’s been taken advantage of, I think, to its full scope. Michael, who you had on recently, is a top trust and estate planner for founders of companies around QSBS. The specific problem that QSBS rollover solve is for a shareholder of an early stage company. Most often founders or very early investors, say, maybe series A or earlier shareholders. It’s an incentive to basically hold your stock for a quote unquote long time. In this sense, that means, you know, now under some new rules, basically three to five plus years. It’s a tax exemption available to folks who hold their stock for at least five years. Then they can exclude from federal income tax now up to $15 million of gains when they sell that stock. So you have to be a shareholder in an early stage C corporation, early stage company. Frazer Rice (01:50.616).Those founders before three to five years are trying to figure out how to use this tool. What are the challenges in making sure they don’t blow up the transaction by transferring something poorly. Or having their company grow too large or have too much cash or those types of things? Maybe list out a little bit some of the challenges that are out there that that a founder needs to be aware of. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (02:22.509).Yeah. So we don’t have to constantly caveat. I’ll mainly talk as though we’re speaking about the pre July 5th, 2025 rules for QSPS. Anything, any stock issued after that date, middle of last year. is under a slightly different set of rules. They are more expanded rules, but I’ll speak to this sort of from those old rules. And so the old rules state that you have to hold your stock for at least five years. And if you do, you can exclude a large portion from federal income tax, usually $10 million for founders. But if you don’t hold the stock for five years, your only option is to take the cash from that sale. For example, say you sell stock at year three or year four, and purchase new QSBS eligible stock with that cash within 60 days. So it’s sort of like the 1031 exchange. Folks maybe are more familiar with real estate property exchanges. Its sort of like a 1031 exchange for stock. So you take the cash and you purchase a like kind quote unquote asset with it. Now the challenge with that is 60 days is not a very long time. And when you’re a founder of a company who just went through liquidity. You just got your deal done and the whirlwind that that is. Now you’re dealing maybe in a post liquidity world. You’re maybe running another team at the acquirer or you’re otherwise involved. 60 days is not a long time to be able to find and diligence a new opportunity. . It’s just not feasible. Especially for founders to use that cash to say buy stock in someone else’s company. It just doesn’t make sense. Like risk adjusted, I suppose. Frazer Rice (04:05.579)No, it’s a miracle that your company did great. Now you have to go and find another miracle and make it work within 60 days. It’s crazy. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (04:10.143).That that’s the biggest that’s probably the biggest barrier to executing them. For the longest time there just weren’t a lot of people. They hadn’t come alongside founders to help advise them on structured ways that they could do these rollovers. Yeah, the options are risky. It’s like take your money and invest it in Dave’s startup in San Francisco. He’s going to lose your money. So that may be what you want to do with that money. To keep your risk profile sort of moving. But that’s not tax planning in any way. Right. To make that decision just to save on federal income tax might not be the best way to use your rollover. So we’ve seen it much more for angel investors, something that they might use. People who want to maybe have a lot of deal flow. A lot of investment opportunities in front of them. But they want to keep that risk profile moving. I’d say timing and risk are the two biggest challenges when you’re trying to execute a rollover. Frazer Rice (05:13.805).As a detail on that, you’ve got your company. You’ve got $10 million coming to you. Hopefully tax free, similar to a 1031. You don’t have to go into one company, you could go into a basket of companies. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (05:28.579).Yeah, you could take the cash, say you make $10 million from a sale. You could pay taxes on $3 million of it, assuming you haven’t hit your five year requirement. Then, you could roll over the other seven in various other deals. You could put it all into one new company. What the rollover actually does is it continues your holding period clock from the last stock. So if you held for three years in your original company stock, You sell. You’re able to reinvest those proceeds within 60 days. It continues your holding period. Once you’re beyond a combined five the next liquidity event in the second company. Now you have proper seasoning on your shares, for lack of a better word, and then you can sell them under the QSPS exemption. Frazer Rice (06:17.143)So, this gets to what you do on a day-to-day basis. So a founder comes to you and says, all right, I’ve got this situation I think that’s coming. And I need some advice. You’re sort of letting them know what’s happening here. How do you advise them, in a sense, whether it’s through your company or even as a general matter? Do you have a suite of other founders and companies that are out there? And then… Maybe also similar to a 1031, is there sort of an intermediary function that needs to happen in order for the asset or the cash to go into sort of a, for lack of word, like an escrow account to then be deployed correctly into the eligible next company so that you keep that period going. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (06:50.713)Boom. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (07:05.839)That’s a good question. It’s not as formalized as the, you know, in terms of the 1031 world where there’s sort of a designated intermediary and that’s sort of required step in the process. This is very much the wire goes into your checking account for the sale of company A stock. Frazer Rice (07:11.703)Mm-hmm. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (07:22.281)You send a wire back out to purchase stock in company B. When someone comes to us and is looking for guidance on how to do a rollover, sometimes they’ve talked to tax or trust in state attorneys already, or maybe they’re CPA. And there are maybe 50 folks in the US who have, I’d say, Frazer Rice (07:37.463)Sure. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (07:45.07)I call it advanced QSPS planning knowledge, which is they have the trust planning strategies, rollover knowledge, all of these things that sort of at their disposal that they can speak to, but it’s a very small network. so our firm is actually the only non-CPA non-law firm in the country that deals directly with founders on these. And so we ended up kind of playing quarterback, connecting them with the right attorneys, maybe the right CPA, if they don’t have one to make sure that the team is sort of assembled. You know, because the risk profile of taking your money and investing in someone else’s company typically doesn’t align with most founders’ interests at that time, the service that we provide is helping them to roll that money into a new startup of their own. We think these founder-led rollovers where the founder or the shareholder who sold their original stock can now direct the proceeds into a new entity that they own and control. It’s a really great way to execute this. It gives the shareholder, the founder the optimal amount of flexibility and control over the proceeds over time. So they can handle their own risk profile. Frazer Rice (08:57.921)So for the founder who built their business originally, they sell it and you’re sort of with them along the way to roll it over into another founder led situation. Are there any mechanics that you help with to sort of ensure that that takes place correctly? There’s so many, it seems like so many tiger traps along the way that you can stick your foot in and you did every, your intent was there, but maybe you did something weird or incorrect. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (09:26.617)Yeah. Frazer Rice (09:26.721)Maybe a better way to ask this question is what are the things in that receiving new QSBS rollover do you want to see or a founder should make sure they have in place before they go ahead and pull the trigger? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (09:41.904)We want to make sure it’s a C corporation. First of all, a lot of times when founders start their first companies, they just, you know, incorporate an LLC somewhere and start doing business. A lot of times there’s not even, maybe there’s, you know, two or $3,000 transferred to a checking account, you know, from their personal to their checking. That’s how you start most businesses. But when you’re, when you’re starting a rollover business, we have to see a couple other things. One is we want to make sure it’s a C corp from day one. Frazer Rice (09:58.989)Right. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (10:09.123)You know, it’s okay if it’s a single owner C Corp where the founders, the, you know, only board member, only director. It’s, you know, it’s your entity. That’s fine. but we also want to see a purchase agreement, some kind of stock purchase agreement. So you can’t just transfer money from your chase savings account where the wire landed to the new business account and, know, go on about, about the business. we want to see a stock purchase agreement. And so some of those agreements, and the optimal way to do those for sort of the, the, the long run. Sometimes, we would obviously we have our template docs in ways that we might advise to do it. But very often we refer that out to legal counsel and coordinate there to make sure that just all the purchase agreements and governance docs and those types of things are in a good place. You know, it’s really making sure we have the purchase agreements and that the money gets moved to the corporate bank account, the new business bank account within 60 days. It’s really not a long period of time. And we run into a lot of situations where If someone’s not kind of quarterbacking the process, deadlines get away quickly and then administrative issues with a bank might push you beyond the 60 day window. We’ve seen that a few times and it can obviously cost you a lot of money. Frazer Rice (11:24.468)The, when you get to a point where the next business that this is going into, often the qualifications of being a QSBS eligible business can be a little bit murky. I’m thinking healthcare for instance, where like a hospital or that type of thing would traditionally probably not be a QSBS situation, but a healthcare service provider or a biotech company or something like that is. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (11:46.937)Yeah. Frazer Rice (11:51.029)Do you help founders think about that? in many ways, there’s sort of the which came first, the idea for the company or the company itself. How do you make sure people stay on all fours on that front? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (12:00.56)Yeah. Yeah, I if you build a startup before, know that the ideas in the early stage sometimes are extremely malleable. And when you start testing things in the market, the business very often changes. You know, we majority work with tech founders and that’s not because, you know, QSBS is well suited for tech. I think a lot of people think that to be QSBS, to be a technology company. That’s not true. It’s just that we most often see QSBS. We run into people who are knowledgeable about QSBS in the venture space. So venture backed start up, like traditional startup businesses, has 80 % plus of those companies are tech businesses. And then the other 20 % is manufacturing, biotech, life science, e-commerce, those types of things. But majority of people that we do these transaction with are in tech. And so by virtue of that, their rollover business ends up being, most of the time, ideas that they have are tech adjacent. So that’s a great place to be. I’d say some things to avoid. What we hear often people coming to us wanting to roll over into real estate in some way or another. And there are ways that the business that you start as part of a QSPS roll over can hold real estate assets long term, depending on the business type. But you have to be really careful there not to, in the eyes of the IRS, look like a real estate holding company or have too much of your assets tied up in sort of like passive real estate holdings. And so I’d say that’s the murkiest stuff that we run into. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (13:37.822).Most of the businesses that we are helping founders start and grow as part of a QSPS rollover are B2B or B2C tech. Either web applications or mobile applications, e-commerce stores. We have a few hardware sort of based companies or like very physical product based companies as well. Frazer Rice (13:58.431)For a lot of tech founders, the idea of taking some money off the table is important. And I would think that maybe partial QSPS situations come up. This isn’t an all or nothing thing. You can take some money off the table and then allocate other parts, maybe half off and then the other half you can roll into the next company. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (14:14.137)Yeah. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (14:18.798)I’d say an extremely common situation that we see is maybe a founder. in New York who is raising maybe a Series B, call it a 50 or $60 million Series B. We saw a lot of these size rounds with the AI kind of boom happening and might be an opportunity to take, you know, four to $6 million off the table as secondary at that stage in the company’s growth. so you have this founder who just got $5 million wired to their bank account, maybe their first money. They’ve been renting in a condo or apartment in the city and they’re still very much like in high growth stage with company so they don’t have a lot of bandwidth to run a new business. And so they’ll really try and de-risk themselves. That is, maybe pay taxes on a million, a million and a half, give themselves a cushion right away, maybe buy a condo or you know whatever, stabilize their life just a bit and roll over the other four, three and a half million, you know, and manage a project on the side that way. That’s a really common situation we see. Frazer Rice (15:19.624)For investors who are invested in a lot of different things and maybe you know, they’ve got six or seven companies that are QSBS eligible and they are sort of rolling the dice on that and sort of picking and choosing which one should go into which that type of thing What’s different about it from an investor standpoint than from an operator standpoint? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (15:43.758)Yeah, I think the biggest thing investors have to pay attention to is if you receive a distribution that isn’t QSPS eligible because of holding period, you cannot just take that money and invest it back into a venture fund. and call that a rollover. The money can go into a venture fund, but that capital also has to be called and deployed into, an investment from that fund. Meaning you can’t just invest in the, in the partnership at the partnership level in a venture fund and it’s sit there undeployed and be eligible for QSBS. It actually has to be fully deployed into target, target opportunities within 60 days. So that’s something that I think that we’ve run into a couple of times with, with investors is they think, I’ll just, know, Fund2 is open at, you know, XYZ firm. I’ll just roll the money over there. But it does have to be deployed still within that 60 day window. So that’s something that we hear a lot of. You know, if you’re an investor, I would keep, you know, you don’t always have the perfect deal ready at the right time. But keeping good relationships with the founders that… you’re partnering with, you know, you never know when someone might be able to open up a tranche on the side or sell some secondary to you. if you’re trying to still get access to that deal sort of outside of a normal round. Frazer Rice (17:07.445)So for the companies that are in your orbit, obviously you’re probably checking in saying, hey, you didn’t do anything to blow up your QSBS status. But for the companies that aren’t that way, and let’s say you’re a founder and you’ve got a nice situation where you’re able to take some money off the table and maybe put it into. one of the things that your friends put together or something like that. How do you think about a checklist or what are the questions to ask to make sure that the recipient investor or recipient of the investment is QSBS eligible and will sort of stick to it? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (17:46.48)Yeah, you want to ensure first that the company is small enough. so under the old rules that I mentioned, the company would have to have less than $50 million of gross assets. A really great proxy for that is just how much has that company raised? You know, if you’re trying to invest in a company and they’ve raised $120 million, it’s very likely that they have at some point blown the asset test and they’re not issuing QSPS anymore. It’s very, it’s not always, but it’s very possible. A lot of people confuse that test for valuation. which is a mistake, you could have a billion dollar company in terms of market value, you know, with only 20 or 25 million dollars worth of assets on the balance sheet. It is possible, especially in some of these high multiple high growth tech businesses. And so, yeah, not confusing valuation with gross assets is one thing to pay attention to. the other is ensuring just that the company is a C corp, especially for early stage investors. I’m talking like first money in, maybe before, you know, pre seed or pre seed, would say, ensuring that the right structuring is in place such that, know, you’re getting stock issued directly from a C corporation at that time you’re investing. So I would say that’s something to worry about more if you’re, you know, an angel. who does a lot of sort of direct sourcing of deals and you’re not going through a fund. Most of the time, if someone’s raised capital directly from a venture fund, all the paperwork and things that you’re going to look for as far as QSPS are going to be in place, because most VCs are pretty well acquainted at this point with, hey, let’s make sure this is eligible before we get in here. Frazer Rice (19:27.913)Right. And just to distinguish, an LLC that elects to be taxed as a C Corp versus a C Corp, C Corp, is there any distinction there for our listeners? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (19:39.673)Yes. Generally, we would say as long as the LLC has made that C-Corp election before issuing more at that stage, guess, membership units of stock, as long as they’ve made that C-Corp election prior to issuing the stock, then we feel generally good about it. But yeah, an LLC, it’s an entity structure whose default taxation is as a pass-through, but an LLC can also be taxed as a C-Corp and can issue quote unquote QSBS eligible shares. or units as well, so it is possible. Frazer Rice (20:12.683)I was gonna say, so for the listeners out there, C-Corp doesn’t just mean C-Corp, but the real operative language is that it’s taxed as a C-Corp component, and that should be part of your checklist as you go down the list of companies to potentially roll into. So for those people who aren’t exactly founders, but maybe are investors or otherwise part of businesses that they’ve been included in, et cetera. Those non-venture-backed businesses, what are the opportunities there for QSBS and then the ability to roll it over into other things? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (20:48.708)Yeah, I would say it’s very rare that we see a non-venture-backed business in between the coasts, I’ll say, right? Like not one of these like kind of like call them coastal elite tech businesses. I’m talking about your like legacy family business in, you know, North Carolina. Frazer Rice (20:59.488)I mean… Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (21:11.856)Most of the time we’re going to see those as pass-throughs or partnerships, maybe like an S-Corp. You would see that type of structure and those businesses, while they could be amazing businesses, the interest in them isn’t QSPS eligible because it has to be issued from a C-Corporation. Most of the time, the planning opportunity we see with those types of businesses is around the time of maybe a generational transition or other type of transition planning where Maybe the children take over from the parents and they establish a plan. Hey, we’re going to take it over, but we want to plan to sell maybe the next five to seven years. I hear this a lot. And opportunity. If you are in an industry in a sector where stock sales are common in the industry for exiting the businesses, changing, electing to be treated as a C Corp or restructuring to a C Corporation from one of those pass through structures is an opportunity because you could sort of reorganize, reissue stock, now start your QSBS five year time clock. And, you know, hopefully the business keeps doing well and you can have that exit opportunity down the line. And at that point, take advantage of QSBS. Again, the thing you want to pay attention to is that you actually be able to do a stock sale at that time because QSBS requires a sale of stock, not an asset sale. And so that’s a really important distinction. So make sure either that you’re in an industry where that’s common or you’re working with counsel who understands what you’re trying to accomplish before you make those decisions about how you’re setting your entity up at that stage. Frazer Rice (22:41.353)Right. Frazer Rice (22:56.758)I just have a comment for me with the passage of the new law that we sort of alluded to where previously you really didn’t start thinking about this until fully five years. The new law, people can start thinking about it within three. You get 50 % of the benefit of the exclusion at three years. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (23:08.282)Mm-hmm. Frazer Rice (23:15.21)And I’ve run into people where three years suddenly seems like a short amount of time, whereas five years, I think everyone was sort of like, we’ll get there eventually. you know, they’re they’re they’re fighting for their survival anyway. And if that happens to work terrific in this case, I think that the law moving the timeline up a little bit has had an interesting impact on those conversion discussions, because I think people are now starting to say, hey, you know what? I can get to three years. And, you know, with the speed at the and the rate at which things change at this point, it’s much more realistic than I think it might have been going back in time. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (23:50.896)And if you have a stable business where you feel comfortable making projections, say three years out, so to what that business could look like at that time, it’s really becoming more common now to do what you’re calling like choice of entity studies, right? So working with someone who can model out with the difference in taxation, both at the company level and at the point of. Frazer Rice (24:05.482)Mm-hmm. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (24:15.276)selling stock, what the optimal structure may be depending on your time horizon tax it, your expectations for growth or lack thereof. So that’s something that some valuation firms, business advisories, some law firms or CPA tax advisories may be able to do. If you’re in that situation, you’re trying to figure out, hey, what’s the math look like based on my baseline assumptions of what this business will be and can help you sort of make those decisions about how to plan. over the next three to seven years. Frazer Rice (24:47.402)As part of that reorganization too, I’ve talked to a few people who are in, let’s call it personality-based businesses, whether they’re podcasters or influencers or other types of things that are a little bit adjacent to maybe typical software companies. And I’ve brought up the notion that you may be disqualified now, but you may have a future growth opportunity within your business to make it fall more in line with a QSBS-defined business. And so, you if you’ve got the time and the ability and it makes a business sense, it may make sense to start thinking about either sectioning that off or developing that business line for something a little bit later on. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (25:27.95)Yeah, being strategic about where those adjacent businesses, how they’re structured and where they’re built. And I mean, where like in terms of a legal entity level sense, I’m thinking about, for instance, several golf YouTubers, make a lot of golf content online, but now they’re announcing partnerships to, you know, design clothing, you know, have their own clothing line, or maybe they’ve entered a, a joint venture with a golf club maker or maybe an emerging brand and they’re taking equity. Frazer Rice (25:41.983)Mm-hmm. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (25:57.826)Those are really interesting options and I think that you still have the opportunity to leverage your personal brand to grow that business but separating them out so that you know your reliance on your personal brand doesn’t ruin QSBS. That’s actually getting to one of the rules around qualified small business stock which is that the companies can’t be based on the skill or reputation of a single person. And so that’s when we think about Frazer Rice (26:24.938)Mm-hmm. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (26:27.632)Like entertainers, athletes, social media personalities. MrBeast, for instance, couldn’t sell MrBeast, the YouTube channel necessarily, as QSBS eligible interest because of that rule more than likely. And that’s obviously a broad brush, paying attention to where you hold your business interests is important for this if you’re in that space. Frazer Rice (26:53.5)Any state thoughts? I know California QSBS is uncoupled from the federal QSBS and New York threatened it and apparently that got knocked down. New Jersey just coupled with the federal government so that people weren’t scared away from doing that. How does that figure into your analysis? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (27:04.304)you Yeah. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (27:12.784)It’s sort of a battle of the coast. It’s like which coast of the United States is going to be most investor and founder friendly with relation to these things. Yeah, because California hasn’t followed it for a long time. Oregon and Washington state are close behind there. And then we have the sort of somewhat the opposite happening on the East Coast. So as an East Coast guy, I hope it becomes a hub. But yeah, there is some sort of. Frazer Rice (27:19.528)Right. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (27:36.388)you know, state and local tax planning, strategic planning that you might be able to do if you have the foresight and, you know, the right data to determine where you might become a resident or taxpayer prior to an exit. You might talk with a. assault attorney or assault advisor state and local tax is usually tax advisors CPAs or or tax attorneys who can help you think through Hey, does it make a difference whether or not I move from California to Texas? What does that look like for my family? What does that look like for my post-tax exit situation? because where the company is headquartered, as long as it’s in the United States, doesn’t matter for QSPS, just has to be a domestic USC corporation. And so remembering that QSPS is fundamentally an individual taxpayer incentive means that regardless of where the shareholders are located, you’re gonna be beholden to that specific state of where you live and their roles around QSPS. Frazer Rice (28:36.906)Terrific stuff. Brady, we’re winding down here. How do people find you and your company and any sort of parting thoughts? Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (28:44.516)Yeah, I’m personally very active on LinkedIn. So you can find me there, Brady Weller and our website, qsbsrollover.com. We also have a sort of an open source QSBS advisory referral site called qsbsreference.com. And so you can find us at either of those places. We’d be happy to help you out and point you in the right direction. Frazer Rice (29:05.13)Brady, thanks for being on. Brady Weller (QSBS Rollover) (29:06.874)Thanks, Frazier, appreciate it. Keywords QSBS, tax exemption, startup founders, rollover, legal structuring, investment strategy, tax planning, startup exit, C corporation, legal advice Titles Mastering QSBS Rollovers: Strategies for Founders and Investors The Ultimate Guide to QSBS Tax Exemptions and Rollovers https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Northern Ireland is a launchpad for thriving startups, and one startup that has done very well is Belfast based Cloudsmith. Back in March they had an oversubscribed Series B which raised £18m from key investors. To find out more about Cloudsmith and the startup scene in Belfast I caught up with Glenn Weinstein the CEO of Cloudsmith.Glenn talks about his background, what Cloudsmith does, Belfast, Unix, open source libraries and more.More about Cloudsmith:Made with love in Belfast and trusted around the world. Cloudsmith is the fully-managed solution for controlling, securing, and distributing software artifacts. Led by industry veterans united by a common passion to make it easier for software teams to do their jobs well. They are building the future of the software supply chain. 

The White House proposes a “minimally burdensome” federal AI framework, OpenAI is reportedly developing a unified “super app” for desktop, and Bluesky announced a $100 million Series B funding round. MP3 Please SUBSCRIBE HERE for free or get DTNS Live ad-free. A special thanks to all our supporters–without you, none of this would be possible.Continue reading "Amazon Attempts Mobile Comeback with Secret “Transformer” Smartphone – DTH"

In this episode, Dave and Jamison answer these questions: Hi Jamison and Dave. Eight years into my software engineering career, all of it at Series B and C startups, I've been craving two things: a recognizable brand name on my resume and the chance to work on real scale problems. After a long search, I finally got both. The catch? I got them in the wrong order. I accepted an offer at one of the hottest and fastest-growing AI companies in the application layer space. Exciting work, smart people, real momentum, but not quite a household name yet, and not quite facing the kind of scaling challenges that come with a billion users yet either. Two weeks later, I finally heard that I cleared the interviews from a big brand name tech company. I'll be honest: it wasn't my first choice brand name. I bombed interviews at a few others and this was basically my consolation prize. Here's the thing about this mega tech company right now: the culture has … shifted. It feels less like a tech company and more like a social experiment with a $1.5 trillion market cap. So now I'm torn and the clock is ticking. My start date at the AI company is in a few weeks and I'm currently in team matching at the mega tech co. Do I renege before I even badge in? Do I start, survive team matching, and then quit? Or do I just honor my commitment and forget about the brand name for now? More broadly: under what circumstances is it ever okay to renege or quit shortly after starting? Have either of you been in this situation or been on the receiving end? I need stories, I need wisdom, and honestly I need someone to just tell me what to do. I've changed from a java developer role to OIC integration on oracle cloud. I'm not sure if that was a good move as it doesn't feel like I'm doing much coding but lots of clicking. I was thinking that having cloud experience would benefit me but now I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I should run back to a java developer job or give it a chance and how much time would be a fair chance?