venturecapital

In Venture Capital, we often marvel at the massive funds managed by industry titans today. But it is humbling to look back at their beginnings.

Most major VC franchises started with a modest first fund and early believers who took a chance on "unproven" GP talent.

🧵 1/5

In venture capital, for new and emerging GPs and LPs alike, there is an important lesson here about patience, vision, and the power of backing early teams that seem talented.

3/5

The next generation of VC giants is likely starting humble right now, backed by believers who see potential before the track record fully materializes.

One call, one email should be sufficient for an LP to make up their mind as to whether or not they want to back this new VC firm with their Fund 1.

4/5

Source: https://www.startup-book.com/2009/01/09/returns-of-venture-capital/

5/5

Looking at the data, Kleiner Perkins' first fund in 1972 was just $8M, while Sequoia Capital launched that same year with only $7M (I am sharing the source hereunder).

2/5

your mom's favorite farcaster (probably), building /quidli 🦑, casting in /justinahn, daoing in /🍊 & /🟪

Exactly
What I don't get here:

A lot of prospective, generalist LPs with limited direct dealflow, shy away from committing to a new VC firm's pre-seed fund 1

But risk is much lower than a straight ticket in a direct pre-seed startup

However these same LPs seem more inclined to the latter

Nonsense to mee

>Most major VC franchises started with a modest first fund and early believers who took a chance on "unproven" GP talent.

not unlike founders and their angel/early investors too