The typical pitch from a Web3 venture capital firm today echoes the pitches we presented three years ago: ‘We boast deep ecosystem relationships,’ ‘Our value extends beyond just capital,’ and ‘Our network is our advantage.’ Although these statements are not false, their ubiquity renders them meaningless. Liquidity providers (LPs) have grown so accustomed to hearing such pitches that they’ve become indistinct. Despite this, the industry persists in replicating identical presentations, often featuring impressive logos, vague theses, and three bullet points on ‘value add.’ For most nascent managers, a substantial track record is nonexistent. This cycle repeats until funding occurs or doesn’t.
At TBV, my colleagues and I pondered what truly distinguished us from others. Eventually, we realized there wasn’t much. So, we took the initiative to create something unique.
There’s a persistent message in the data that the industry consistently overlooks: emerging managers tend to outperform. Studies repeatedly indicate they achieve top-quartile performance more frequently than established funds and deliver significantly higher returns on average. The potential is real; however, the problem lies within structural dynamics — emerging managers struggle to communicate why clients should choose them over others, resulting in capital favoring brands over potential.
When TBV was conceived, we decided that our pitch needed to be a tangible product rather than just a promise. We constantly asked ourselves: what does a fund genuinely possess? Not its connections, as these aren’t defensible. Instead, we focused on what it has built, the data it generates, and the platform value it offers founders.
Our solution was events. Our aim wasn’t merely networking or branding; instead, we sought to create a people-centric deal engine. Web3 thrives on conferences — everyone is aware of this. Founders travel vast distances for handshake opportunities at side events, and VCs invest heavily in sponsorship fees for access that could have been obtained via email. The return on investment has always been ambiguous at best. Our goal was to reverse the model: instead of paying for access, we aimed to build an environment, control the data, foster relationships at scale, and directly integrate these into sourcing, diligence, and value creation.
By 2025, our event series attracted over 43,000 attendees and more than 100 partners. This wasn’t accidental or merely a marketing ploy; it was intentional infrastructure. Every interaction, connection, and emerging trend observed in those rooms contributed to TBX, our AI-driven deal engine. The events and the fund form part of the same flywheel.
‘We aren’t alone in rethinking this. What’s fascinating is how varied these approaches are and how few resemble traditional funds.’ Outlier Ventures discovered a similar insight but from a different perspective. They embraced the accelerator model, providing genuine support platforms for early-stage founders rather than just writing checks and attending board meetings. This approach resulted in a fund with over 300 portfolio companies and a compelling reason for founders to choose them over competitors with larger assets under management (AUM). Paradigm took an entirely distinct path: they delved into technical contributions, not only investing in protocols but actively contributing to them. Such depth is genuinely challenging to replicate, and LPs recognize this.
What these models have in common, along with what future innovative managers will share, is that the fund itself serves a purpose beyond capital. The challenge isn’t ‘how do we tell a more compelling story?’ but rather ‘how do we create something that makes the story self-evident?’
The good news is there isn’t just one solution. Our events model works for us; Outlier’s accelerator model suits them, while Paradigm thrives with deep technical involvement. What hasn’t worked, and what LPs are increasingly unwilling to accept as effective, is a pitch relying solely on unverifiable relationships and intangible value.
Web3 evolves quickly enough that those who construct tangible infrastructure now will be challenging to displace in the future. Those still focusing their decks on networks in three years might find themselves alone. I am genuinely eager to see what other innovative models emerge. When competition in this arena is truly about doing something distinct, it becomes the best outcome for the industry.