Florence Bout

YC’s new batch (S25) is live and investors are already swarming 🔥 Harmonic’s data highlights the 20 startups attracting the most attention. The signal is clear: this batch is dominated by AI-native and infrastructure-first companies. ▫️ Pally (YC S25) – Personal relationship management with AI insights ▫️ Avelis Health (YC S25) – AI auditing for medical claims ▫️ Motives (YC S25) – Video-based market and user intelligence ▫️ IronGrid – Insurance-backed warranties for battery storage ▫️ Imprezia – Native ad engine for LLMs and chatbots ▫️ Finto – Automated invoice processing with AI agents ▫️ Kernel – Cloud platform for web automation agents ▫️ Nottelabs (YC S25) – Framework for browser-based AI agents ▫️ BootLoop (YC S25) – AI-driven firmware development and debugging ▫️ Convexia (YC S25) – Automated sourcing of early-stage drug candidates ▫️ Closera (YC S25) – AI marketing workflows for real estate ▫️ AgentMail (YC S25) – Email API purpose-built for AI agents ▫️ Alter (YC S25) – Secure gateway connecting AI tools to enterprise data ▫️ Channel3 (YC S25) – API for AI-powered online shopping ▫️ Albacore Inc. (YC S25) – Autonomous underwater vehicles ▫️ Wedge (YC S25) – Compliance and monitoring for AI in healthcare ▫️ Halluminate (YC S25) – Testing and deployment automation for AI apps ▫️ Cactus (YC S25) – Run AI models directly on devices and wearables YC continues to be the strongest early-stage pipeline in the world. 👉 If you were writing checks today, which of these would you back? Image source: Lenny's Newsletter

594

32 comentarios

Every VC website says "value-add." Most have never operated and are selling help they can't actually deliver. After 100+ investments, here's what real value looks like (and how to spot the BS). Last week, a founder asked me: "What value do you actually add beyond the check?" Fair question. I've heard every VC claim they're "value-add." Most aren't. The Marketing BS: "Access to our network" = We'll send one intro email, maybe "Strategic guidance" = We'll give opinions on things we don't understand "Operational support" = We'll suggest you hire a recruiter "Brand value" = We have a nice logo for your website I've watched founders waste months chasing these empty promises. What Actually Matters: After backing 100+ companies, here's the only "value-add" that counts: 1. Speed of Decision The best VCs get back to you in 48 hours, not 4 weeks. Time killed waiting for answers is time not building. One of my founders needed emergency bridge funding. Decision in 3 hours. Money wired same day. That's value. 2. Useful Introductions (With Context) Not "Hey, you two should meet." But: "Sarah, meet John. He solved the exact payment processing problem you're facing at scale. He's expecting your call Tuesday at 2pm." Context. Relevance. Follow-through. 3. Pattern Recognition That Saves You Money "I've seen this movie 5 times. Here's what killed the others..." When I tell founders not to hire a VP of Sales before product-market fit, I'm saving them $400K and 6 months of pain. 4. Being There When Things Break Every VC loves you when you're up and to the right. Real value shows up during layoffs, failed product launches, and co-founder breakups. 3am calls. Emergency board meetings. Actual support when everything's on fire. 5. Getting Out of the Way The most underrated value-add: knowing when to stop giving advice. Your company. Your vision. Your execution. The best VCs amplify, not override. The Litmus Test: Ask any VC: "What specific help did you provide your last 3 portfolio companies?" If they talk about their "platform team" or "exclusive events," run. If they name specific introductions, saved costs, or crisis moments they helped navigate - that's real. The Truth: Most "value-add" is BS because most VCs have never operated. They're selling a product they don't understand. The real value isn't in the services they list on their website. It's in the scars they earned building and failing themselves. I tell every founder the same thing: Judge VCs by their actions in your worst moments, not their promises in pitch meetings. What's the most valuable thing an investor has ever done for you (beyond writing a check)? #VentureCapital #Startups #Fundraising #RealTalk #Founders

92

33 comentarios

Founders, only you, your team and your investors should own shares in your startup❗ I see so many early teams giving away equity to service providers, tech agencies, coaches, lawyers, fundraising consultants, media, or even “work for equity” deals with people who are not real employees. I get why it happens. In the early days, paying with equity feels easy. Cash is tight. You want to move fast and get help. But here’s is the hard truth: 👉 Equity is the most expensive currency you have. 👉 Every extra name on your cap table makes your life harder later. 👉 Future investors will care. A LOT. When you give away slices to anyone outside founders, team, or investors, you lose control & (a lot of) money. Here’s a simple structure: ✅ Founders: reserve equity for yourself (with founder vesting!) ✅ Team: use an option pool to incentive core team members ✅ Investors: money for equity & use pooling structures for angels Everything else - services, advice, legal, agency work - you pay for. If you can’t afford it, find a way to earn your first money. Get creative. But keep your cap table CLEAN. P.S. At a later stage, it could be an option to consider giving important advisors a small amount of shares. #startups #investments #venturecapital

192

82 comentarios

Friday rant time. Investors don't take risks. Everyone wants Tier-1 background.  Nobody is out there for the little guy. Sharing a brief breakdown of VC economics (deep dive link in comments). VC is NOT charity, it's pure financial services. The NUMBER ONE metric we're measured by (for older funds) is DPI, fancy term for how much money you've given back. 1x, shut shop and go home. 2x, better, but still bad. 3x, now you have a reason to live. (for folks wondering how young funds are measured, it's typically MOIC + IRR, basically, how are companies you've invested in performing at present). Assume a ₹200 crore seed stage fund. Needs to give back ₹600 crore at least. Ignoring fees and expenses, you can invest ₹10 crore in 20 companies, for 10% each. Since it's quite clear (Fractal, Zomato, BlueStone, Nykaa) that it takes 12-14 years to IPO a startup in India, you can't wait that long (fund life is 10 years). So you have to exit to Series C/D investors who WILL want a discount. Assume 3 rounds of dilution, leaves you with ~5%, 20% discount, so 4% held. Seed has ~75% mortality rate, so 5 companies left. These 5 have to get you ₹600 crore. At 4% held: 1 company needs to raise at ₹15000 - Just NOT happening 2 companies raise at ₹7500 - Still VERY unlikely 3 companies raise at ₹5000 - Closer 4 companies raise at ₹3750 - Possible 5 companies raise at ₹3000 - More possible ^This is also the price Minimalist was acquired by HUL, which was an OUTLIER outcome and first of it's kind for consumer startups. The above should illustrate how hard the business is. Hence when funds insist on backing folks with successful exits, strong corporate careers, or absent both, just a great educational background, is maximizing luck. At Seed, there are two things that swing it for you. I call it Numbers & Story. If you have a GREAT story (I sold my last company for ₹500 crores), you can have ~no numbers. If you have a good story (I was VP Google India), once again, numbers are lower priority. If you're 22, from a small town college, breaking it down harshly, you NEED numbers. As an investor, we just DON'T ignore amazing growth. That being said, since this is a (very hard) financial business, we're looking at any and every indicator of possible success. Experience here helps in two ways: - Have already made dumb mistakes on OTHER peoples money - Have a network who will pick up the phone and help you/become first customer #venturecapital #startups #funding

455

99 comentarios

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

118

9 comentarios