Quoting Francesco Farina:

I’ve seen too many small fund managers praising their higher likelihood of success

The real problem isn’t just the quantity but the shift in mindset: investors increasingly approach venture capital like a numbers game, prioritizing portfolio diversification and quick deployment over deep conviction. This creates a bias toward ideas that are scalable and trendy rather than bold and risky.

A feedback loop where capital supports ideas engineered for short-term viability at the expense of enduring impact. This shift in priorities has fundamentally weakened the venture ecosystem’s capacity for breakthrough innovation.

Starting a company, for many, is no longer an act of rebellion or mission-driven obsession; it’s a résumé item, a stepping stone to prestige.

Today, failure is often seen as just another step in a polished LinkedIn narrative. Seed funding has become a safety net, allowing entrepreneurs to test ideas without putting their skin fully in the game. Venture capital has essentially subsidized the idea that starting a company is as much a career choice as going to business school or joining a management consulting firm.

when the underlying motivations shift from “building the next big thing” to “playing the game,” the results are predictably mediocre.

Winners are not just reactive participants in the ecosystem; they are the architects of it, ensuring they continue to command the largest share of returns.

Funds outside the top 1%—whose returns don’t outperform safer, more liquid asset classes—likely shouldn’t exist for sophisticated investors. Anything with a (realistic) target return lower than ~5x over 10 years cannot justify the “illiquidity price”.