I am honored to be a @BusinessInsider rising star of venture capital in 2023 ⭐ From bank teller to VC, it is honestly still a dream that I get to work in venture for a living! Thank you to the BI team for sharing my story 🙏🏼 I hope it inspires the next generation of VCs! I hope it shows that anyone can break into VC, even those with an uncommon background. Full write up for those who can't access paywall: -- "Hoffman began his career as a bank teller in 2006 at a local bank in downtown Anaheim. He used his wages to pay for college and eventually built a music production studio, and eventually worked in equity research at @MorganStanley. Hoffman got the startup investing bug and joined Samsung Electronics's innovation and VC firm, @SamsungNext, where he helped lead investments in @readyplayerme , @yugalabs, and @WonderDynamics. Last year, Hoffman broke out on his own with @SunsetVC , an early-stage fund that got the backing of @BankofAmerica and @alexisohanian's @sevensevensix Hoffman says the best way to break into investing is by getting "hands-on experience doing the work of a VC." "Start by joining VC communities and programs that offer intern, fellow, or scout opportunities," said Hoffman. He said he started angel investing with small amounts on AngelList and then built an angel community. He also volunteered as an intern at @HarlemCapital in 2018 when their first fund was being launched."

A lot of questions this week on funding, so here's how a GPU typically gets funded at $IREN. First, the customer signs a multi-year take-or-pay contract and agrees to a prepayment. On our recent 3-year contracts, prepayments have been 45% to 55% of the associated GPU capex. Second, financing is committed, secured by the contracted GPUs. On the Microsoft contract we secured an A-rated facility at around 6%, which together with prepayments covers 96% of GPU capex. More recently, for a non-investment grade counterparty at Mackenzie, we secured financing at 9% fixed, which together with prepayments covers more than the full cost of the GPUs. That's the GPU side. The data centers are a separate, long-term asset base, and we own the ones our GPUs run in. Construction has been funded from cash to date, with no debt against these multi-billion dollar assets. As they come online with contracted customers, they can support financing in their own right. The processes behind the next facilities are continuing, and new paper will cost what the market charges. With GPU paybacks of around two years on our recent 3-year contracts, a wider spread barely moves the economics. There's more customer demand than we can build for. As we noted at our recent earnings, 2026 is largely sold out, recent 3-year contracts are at more than double the prior year's pricing, and demand for anything we can bring online in 2027 covers it several times over, with prepayments a focus in every negotiation. Conversations on 2028 capacity are already underway. Meanwhile announced capacity keeps slipping across the industry, which is the point: signing deals isn't the bottleneck in this market, bringing GPUs online is, and that's our focus.

Gavin Baker on the other side of Ben's bandwidth story: at the peak of the 2000 bubble, 97% of America's fiber sat dark, and today there are no dark GPUs. "I had, depending on how you look at it, the privilege and the misfortune of being a tech investor during the year 2000 bubble, which was really a telecom bubble." "The year 2000 bubble was defined by something called 'dark fiber.' Dark fiber was literally fiber that was laid down in the ground, and not lit up... At the peak of the bubble, 97% of the fiber that had been laid in America was dark." "Contrast that with today. There are no dark GPUs. All you have to do is read any technical paper, and one of the biggest problems in a training run is that GPUs are melting." @GavinSBaker

A brutal few days across the AI infrastructure sector, and $WULF has been no exception. Financing costs, leverage, capital needs and returns on AI investment are all under scrutiny. We are not sitting on the sidelines. Yesterday, @MorganStanley hosted us in NYC for a full day with >30 investors, spanning long-only funds, global hedge funds, multi-strategy managers and credit investors. It was one of the most valuable days I've spent with investors. Tough questions. Candid conversations. Here's what stood out...

$WULF is NOT a neocloud. $WULF IS an energy infrastructure company. We match long term investment grade energy supply with long term HPC/AI off-take. We finance our projects competitively because our contracts require our customers to be investment grade or bring investment grade credit support. We raised capital last spring opportunistically and maintain a fortress balance sheet. Our team has built large scale energy infrastructure for 25 years. Lake Mariner is delivering CB-4 this quarter and CB -5 in the first quarter ‘27. No surprises coming. We projected a range of 8-10 million per MW. We are squarely in the middle of that range. We are all about execution. Project Justified in Kentucky is a world-class project. We already have the required equity and we have an investment grade backstop committed. We execute and have predictable cash flow. Markets are pretty wild right now but we fervently believe price action will catch up to shareholder value. Demand for our product is robust and real. Certainly we have to remain diligent and execute like there’s no tomorrow. We will. But knowing what we have in the ground, in contract, the investment grade credits behind our contracts and the team’s execution history and capabilities- we sleep at night. You can too.

Leopold Awareness blew up in July. And now rumours VARA Fund getting blown up in Oct Uhh.

The Big 5 1. AI x Biology: $TEM: The data layer $CRSP: The execution layer cutting DNA at a specific site. $BEAM: Higher risk play on editing individual bases $RXRX: Data generation layer $LLY: The entire stack 2. Financial Revolution: $COIN: The everthing crypto play $HOOD: The distribution layer $SECZ: The purest tokenization play 3. Commodities: Copper: $COPX $TMQ Solar: $SHLS $TAN $NXT Silver: $CTGO $SLV $HL Scandium: $SREMF 4. Optics: $MRVL: Just forecasted a 10x ramp up in revenue to 2031. $AAOI: Trades ~1.7x FY28 base case (131% CAGR). $HIMX: Guiding to $100M in CPO revenue in FY26 with a big ramp up in 2027-2028 5. The Power Bottleneck: $BE: MS estimates Bloom will be the answer to ~20% of the US's data center power generation shortfall. $CEG: Owns the largest US nuclear fleet with huge hyperscaler deals $SHLS: A higher risk play on solar (electrical components) $SMR: A very long term and a very high risk play on the Small Modular Reactor market.

I am actually quite constructive here through year end - reasonable minds can disagree, that’s what makes a market. But yes there are going to be a lot of losers. And good feedback that I will think about; i.e. wise to buy puts whenever vol gets cheap, be diversified and always have at least some ballast in the long book. Example: in a prior life, I would always have a small allocation to gold that I would cash in during pullbacks and then rebuild during rips. Consequence of doing marketing with the gold guy for several years. But at times like this could always have more puts and more ballast. This is a tough job and we are all doing our best. BTW, enjoy your takes and please keep writing songs.

TLDR; we will probably never get another ARR number from Anthropic, which is healthy. Should force the market to move away from extreme focus on Anthropic/OpenAI ARR numbers to hyperscale growth rates, which are a much better metric for AI at this point given they capture Muse, Grok, Gemini and Open-Source. Anthropic FCF positive in Q3 and reaccelerating in October on Opus 5.5 per third party data. Roadshow in several weeks will happen after this has been widely confirmed. Unit economics much better than expected given positive FCF with 75% of their compute going to training. All per public reporting.   OpenAI continuing to grow at the same pace per Sarah Friar interview after they took share vs. Anthropic in Q3. Means the sum of Anthropic/OpenAI growth is accelerating from the Q3 pace. OpenAI probably hits FCF positive in the next few months.   Open-source growing much faster than either Anthropic or OpenAI. Modal tripled since May and is 15x YoY per yesterday’s announcement. Open-source tokens generate more revenue and profit for the hyperscalers/neoclouds than frontier tokens. *Every* open source inference cloud I am aware of is growing faster both sequentially and YoY than either Anthropic or OpenAI. And their combined compute spend is becoming material.   Third party data pointing to hyperscalers continuing to accelerate in Q3. All report in the next two weeks. Acceleration should continue in Q4 and Q1 as installed base of compute slowly reprices higher closer to spot and new capacity comes online at higher prices. Continued acceleration in hyperscalers should help address external funding concerns.   10 year yield down in a straight line over the last 24 hours.   Some risk of escalation in Iran next few days, but earnings and mid-terms probably outweigh taking an ultra long-term view and looking out 30 days.   Biggest risk imo remains cyber and OpenAI/Anthropic dominating the model layer. Fragmentation, competition and lower margins at the model layer are good for everyone else in the ecosystem and for America. Slower for longer is much better than an overbuild and an actual bubble.

The last 18mos has seen an insane nearly ~$200B of AI startup exits via M&A. The median age is 4yrs old. It is absolutely possible to return a multibillion dollar venture fund with phenomenal IRR, even if you aren’t in big AI! This is one of the hottest liquidity markets ever.

AGI is coming, and hundreds of AI supply chain oligopolies trade at only 1–5x revenue & 5–15x earnings Short AI timelines could nuke software moats. Key physical chokepoints still remain Launching Cambrian: an AI hedge fund seeded with ~$70M. Backed by Metaplanet & Jaan Tallinn

It’s not that supercomputer data centers are not in high demand, as they definitely are. However, getting money to build complex hardware systems with massive power, cooling & networking is not the same as doing it. SpaceX has a super cracked team that is outperforming the rest of the world by an order of magnitude in mass to orbit and even we find it very difficult!

Be profitable and run your company with maximal agentic loops You don’t need to sell more of your co anymore $10M profit per year reinvested is like an annual Series A no dilution The best startups do this now. No whinging about the Series A/B crunch. You don’t need saving.

1) Trying again. 
TLDR: Everyone can win. Open-source, frontier labs, infrastructure, applications and most importantly the American people.   I understand all of the jitters about Anthropic losing share, real rates, spreads and second derivatives. Still think the most likely future outcome is a hybrid, multi-model future where almost everyone wins, open-weight tokens are likely the overwhelming majority of tokens, the dominant frontier model companies still do well albeit perhaps not the outcome that seemed possible in May and AI infrastructure/applications benefit immensely from the increased fragmentation, competition and lower margins at the model layer.   Lower margins at the model layer mechanically drive higher compute demand as long as someone is willing to pay for the training. And Jensen is obviously willing to be the “trainer of last resort.” As below-market compute contracts signed in 24/25 roll-off and reprice higher, cloud and neocloud revenue should continue to accelerate which will help address financing fears; I think we may be near peak external financing for this buildout. Noteworthy that using data from 3Fourteen Research, B200 clusters will generate a 37% IRR *if* their rental price declines 40% per year. Prices are still going up, but that IRR math is too ridiculous to print. 37% IRRs available at scale should get funded. Re: this weekends controversy about MOUs, Anthropic’s $413 billion of real contractual commitments sounds scary. Reality is that it works out to roughly $31 billion of annual cloud spend, which is easily internally financed given their reported ARR, and $161 billion of spend at Broadcom which will be financed by Broadcom and private credit. Continue to believe fragmentation at the model layer is the best outcome for ordinary Americans and humans everywhere. As I have said before, do not trust any 5-20 individuals to make the best possible decisions about the direction of this technology. I want as many AIs as possible to maximize the odds that they encompass the diversity of human values across the world and richness of human variation. And I want an AI that shares my own personal values. Safety, freedom and the maximization of human agency through democratization, distribution and diffusion vs. centralization. History has spoken on the dangers of the latter path. Finally, from my perspective anything that slows this buildout down is net positive over the long-term as the biggest risk and worst outcome is an *actual* overbuild. We are structurally short watts, wafers and increasingly capital. That is all good. God forbid we were still in ZIRP, TSM ramped capex to 3x their current plan and we weren’t short turbine blades: there would almost certainly be an overbuild and a bubble. That would be terrible. Slower and smoother for longer is better both for investors and for the world. A terrible cyber event is the most plausible near term bear case IMHO, but AI cyberdefense ramping quickly and I was happy to hear Sholto say that cyber probably becomes defense dominant in the near future.   Longer, threaded version follows:

I've finally invested in enough unicorns (at seed) that I have confidence in the traits unicorn founders have in common. If you fail to hone these traits, you will fail to build a $1B+ company in my experience. / 1. Velocity consists of speed Matt Loszak from Aalo showed me this the most: The best founders are viscerally uncomfortable with slow progress. They feel it as a physical irritant, not an abstract concern. They obsessively refactor how they’re pursuing goals to identify clever shortcuts and rethink their roadmap from first principles. Speed leads to high momentum and a compounding returns on knowledge and product. It’s necessary to maintain your headstart in a market, otherwise the faster competitor will beat you within a couple years. / 2. Velocity consists of direction The best founders regularly surface from heads-down execution to ask whether their path is still the right one — whether a better route to the destination has opened up, or whether the destination itself has shifted. Pathfinding prevents the common failure mode of executing brilliantly in the wrong direction. It requires intellectual honesty and the willingness to kill plans that no longer make sense. The best founders set a recurring quarterly calendar event to re-assess all their goals. / 3. Mission alignment The journey to building a unicorn is long. Without a mission that goes beyond financial outcome, most founders lose steam and start phoning it in. Then they get surpassed by competitors who are hungrier. The mission doesn't have to be world-saving — but it has to be genuine to you. / 4. Asking for advice and integrating it The best founders ask smart people for advice and implement the good advice immediately. The moment they’re shown a better way, they update their processes. They don’t assume they’ll stumble into better ways organically; they set aside time each week to learn from others and shortcut their development. They assemble a counsel of advisors who are the best in the world at what they do and they sell them on the mission. / 5. Brick-by-brick hiring Adam Guild of Owner showed me this the most. Unicorn founders treat each early hire as weight-bearing. They run a deliberate process to find the best person in the world for each role — not whoever is closest at hand ("hiring within arm's reach") from their existing networks. (Unless they are the best). The foundation built in the first ten hires sets the ceiling for everything that follows. A single mis-hire in a key seat early on compounds. Getting this right means the team itself becomes a competitive moat.

On the relationship between Valar Atomics and Day One Ventures.

Isaiah, after everything we’ve been through together I’m surprised that you would publicize our disagreement in this fashion. But since you have created public interest in this, it is important that people should hear both sides of the story. Day One has been a major investor in Valar from the beginning, and we have never wavered in our belief that the company will be a success. This faith and support in our founders is why fourteen Day One founders have become limited partners in Day One’s most recent fund. In 2024, Day One invested in Valar’s seed round. Later that year, Valar required a seed extension after miscalculations by management regarding the capital needs of the business. Day One stepped in to provide this seed extension, saving the company in a difficult time. When it came time to raise a Series A, Valar spent several weeks on the market without success. At Valar’s request, Day One then offered the first term sheet and co-led the Series A, again saving the company during a time when deep tech startups in highly regulated industries were a difficult sell in venture capital. Then when Valar needed a Series A extension, Isaiah asked that Day One waive our pro rata rights so as to make a tenuous financing deal work out. We agreed for the good of the company. As part of these transactions, Valar agreed that, if their long-shot effort to build nuclear energy as a startup did succeed, Day One would have rights to participate in future rounds that could not be eliminated without Day One’s consent. This was a fair bargain at a time when Day One took extraordinary risks by betting against the market when Valar’s future appeared highly uncertain. Following the achievement of criticality on June 18th, our faith has been validated. Valar went from being an obscure company to a hot startup. We congratulate the Valar team on their hard won success! Of course, when it came time for Valar to raise a Series B after achieving such success, Day One expected to participate in that round – as both parties had agreed. But at this point the normally positive communications between Day One and Valar took a negative turn. Valar insisted that Day One give up all of its future pro rata rights despite the parties’ agreements, and despite four out of six major investors participating in the Series B round without waiving. This went against both the letter and the spirit of our deal, so we did not agree. In decades of investing we have waived pro-rata rights dozens of times, but no other company has ever demanded that we give up all of our rights for all future rounds. We told Isaiah we would give up a majority of our pro-rata in the Series B round so as to not make his life difficult, to which he responded “You cannot make my life difficult, I can make your life difficult.” It was at this point that we sought representation with Quinn Emanuel to protect the firm and the interests of our limited partners. Day One has since learned of a significant secondary equity sale by Isaiah from which we were excluded. Our attempts to gain insights into this through our information rights have been stymied by Valar management, who have refused to produce material documents requested by Day One. After weeks of delay on these documents, Valar management alerted us this Wednesday that they intend to pursue legal action against Day One unless we waive our legal rights forever. We have always pursued positive and mutually beneficial relationships with all of our portfolio companies. We have neither taken nor threatened legal action against Valar, and in fact we told them explicitly that we have no interest in doing so. Valar voluntarily entered into a contract with Day One, then violated that contract, and is now suing Day One. We are deeply disappointed by this recent erratic turn, but are still proud of our early and continued support of Valar. We look forward to the clarity from the courts that Valar’s management is seeking.

Split venture capital into two categories: Discovery: $0–5M rounds Growth: Series E or later Essentially, this reflects investors either filling the pipeline of VC opportunities, or piling into capital into "legible" companies. From 2016 to 2021, growth went from roughly 2x discovery, to about 6x at the peak. In 2022, as the market corrected, that fell back to 4x. Last year, growth was all the way up to 14x discovery, and it appears to be 68x so far this year. This is an absurd imbalance. (N.B. It's very likely that @PitchBook is undercounting small rounds in 2026, as they tend to be reported more slowly. That said, it's hard to see any update bringing the multiple to much below 30x.)

Things my @bot setup does that still blow my mind: 1. A Chief of Staff who opens the day pulling open loops from email & tasks and suggesting things it can knock out before 7am. 2. After every meeting, decisions get folded into Notion, Linear, and Todoist — not left rotting in Granola 3. Every email starts as a draft. The CoS bot scans my email every ~2hr and drafts replies to nearly everything — including checking my cal for availability and finding requested attachments / links 4. A specialist for each lane: curriculum, engineering, coaching, hiring, content, ops, and one for every single piece of software 5. Routines that keep running while I’m offline (e.g. monitoring Sentry errors in our apps and proactively fixing things) 6. Group rooms where 2–4 bots share one project thread instead of me copy-pasting context 7. Cloud coding agents that pick up Linear issues and open PRs after running the list of open work by me EoD — then squash-merge to main when it’s done 8. Meeting prep briefs pulled from Granola + Notion before I walk in 9. A growing shareable knowledge base in Notion + a GitHub repo that we update daily based on what happens at school 10. Student progress look-up across Expertise, Followers, and CoFounder without inventing numbers — chat anytime to see where a student is on their business work 11. Mentor Mind that coaches me on how to hold the bar without inventing doctrine 12. Todoist as a central task list where it logs things it’s blocked on for me, or from meetings / emails — and I can paste links into chat to direct it how to solve them 13. Engineering work is automatically tracked in Linear so my and the product teams’ bots don’t collide with each other 14. Presentations spun up in Gamma / Claude Design without me opening a slide tool 15. Plaud / live capture → notes the bots can actually act on Probably more but these were the immediate ones we thought of.

I try to tell people SpaceX is a $100T company in the making bc of what it’s building. That’s my ultimate long-term bet, and the more I look at the pieces, the more sense it makes to me. However, no one believe me… 1/ STARLINK: Today, ~2.2 billion people, roughly 26% of the world have no internet. And plenty of others have internet that’s slow, unreliable or too expensive. Starlink ended June 2026 with 12 million subscribers, double a yr earlier, and available across 167 markets. SpaceX’s connectivity business brought in $4.3B in revenue that quarter alone and is already serving homes, businesses, airlines and ships, with direct-to-phone service opening another massive opportunity. 2/ AI SATELLITES: AI needs more computing power, and supplying electricity to all those computers is becoming a major constraint. The IEA expects global data-center electricity demand to nearly double between 2025 and 2030. Sure, you can order more chips, but you still need somewhere to plug them in. SpaceX wants to put that computing hardware in orbit, using continuous sunlight in the right orbits and laser links to send data through Starlink. Its planned Gigasat factory is intended to produce thousands of AI satellites starting as soon as late 2027. Cooling, chip supply and launch costs still have to work, but space offers a way to expand without waiting for another connection to Earth’s power grid. This could become a massive business for SpaceX if you believe in the trajectory of AI. 3/ POINT-TO-POINT TRAVEL: Imagine going from LA to New York in 25 minutes, London to New York in 29, or LA to London in 32. Those are SpaceX’s published estimates for its Earth-to-Earth concept where you can get anywhere on Earth in ~30 to 1 hr. There’s still a lot to prove before this becomes a passenger service, but if they make it safe, reliable and affordable, think about what getting those hours back would mean for travel, business and urgent deliveries. 4/ A MOON BASE: NASA has already awarded SpaceX about $4B in contracts to develop and demonstrate its lunar lander. There’s real work and real $ money behind getting back to the Moon. The bigger, longer-term plan is to use resources on the Moon to manufacture satellites there, then send them into space with an electric launcher. The Moon has about one-sixth of Earth’s gravity, which helps explain the appeal. If that works, we could start building space infrastructure using materials already off Earth. Delivering the equipment, building the factories and supplying their power could become major businesses of their own. 5/ MARS: This is the part that gets me most excited. SpaceX estimates that a self-sufficient city would require around a million people and millions of tons of cargo. Think about everything those people would need, like homes, electricity, food, water, communications, factories and transportation. SpaceX currently lists its first commercial Mars cargo missions as no earlier than 2028. Helping build a brand new economy on another planet is an opportunity humans have never had before. 6/ STARSHIP: This is the vehicle that connects all this. It’s designed to carry more than 100 metric tons to orbit while being fully reusable. Getting it to fly repeatedly at low cost is the breakthrough all these plans depend on. Cheaper launches could make more Starlink capacity possible, make AI satellites more practical and make supplying the Moon and Mars more achievable. SpaceX is building the transportation system and several of the businesses that would use it. It’s the holy grail of SpaceX. I know how big $100T sounds. Getting there would take decades of execution and businesses operating at a scale we haven’t seen before. My bet is that connecting more of Earth, supplying AI compute and helping people build beyond this planet can create that kind of value. But no one believes me… just like no one believed me when I said Tesla would be a $1T+ company back when it was trading under $50B.

ok, my monthly VC/LP debrief is here. 10 things I've found interesting in Sep '26: 1/ a historic liquidity wave may finally break the VC driven by active AI M&A (e.g. Cursor at $60B, Hugging Face at $12.9B) and a massive IPO pipeline. just 3 companies (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) could represent ~$5T in aggregate EV at IPO, so if VCs retain 40-50% equity, that translates to $2–2.5T in fund-attributable value which is roughly 20-25x the actual LP liquidity generated across all of 2022–2024. (h/t @samirkaji) 2/ $50B+ VC-backed IPOs, the aggregate IRR since day 1 sits at -4% annually, compared to an 18% annual return for the QQQ over the same periods, so holding companies private longer at inflated valuations forces one-dimensional growth that public markets heavily punish once cash flows are scrutinized. (h/t @Curiousjorge65) 3/ median Series A checks skyrocketed from $4.5M a decade ago to $19.4M today, causing the number of funds sized to lead them to collapse from 200 to just 50. this has squeezed out mid-tier startups ($3-5M ARR growing 3-5x) while forcing Series A investors to fund only two extremes: highly quantitative 10x growers or early-stage, massive AI/ambition narratives. (h/t @jaydimonte) 4/ @a16z published a chart arguing that 5% of VC investors generate 90% of returns, concluding LPs should concentrate capital in mega funds. the underlying NBER study measures profit dollars from individuals (not fund-level returns), so a $5M fund returning 39x ranks below a $1B fund returning 1.2x by this metric. 5/ per commonplace research: LP appetite for alternatives has reached a 5-year high, with 63% planning to increase allocations over the next 12 months (vs 54% in 2025). rather than pulling back amid market uncertainty, allocators are doubling down on control and economics: co-investment participation surged to a record 64%, while capital is aggressively concentrating in North America (53% of deployment interest). 6/ as large VC funds have grown more common, the typical number of LPs contributing to each fund has declined. in the first half of 2026, the median fund between $100M and $250M had 44 different LPs. in 2025, the median fund of that size had 59 LPs. over the past four years, median LP count for these nine-figure funds is down 45%. (h/t @cartainc) 7/ the fund of funds most likely to anchor an emerging manager's Fund I is about as young as the fund itself. across 49 FoFs actively backing EMs, more than 60% (30 funds) were launched in 2020 or later, and 28 of those 30 are dedicated EM specialists. established institutional allocators remain largely sidelined, leaving first-time GPs to build their early LP bases alongside a "new guard" of FoFs. (h/t @murphcapital) 8/ LPs are simultaneously forced to make re-ups into mega-funds while tracking the market's largest platforms. even when an LP has genuine interest in emerging managers, their attention, IC bandwidth, and available risk budget are limited which means a good GP may not get a meeting bc it isn't explained quickly and "clearly enough". (h/t @jeff) 9/ as a fund becomes more lead/co-lead oriented, its relationships with other investors change. people who were once natural collaborators can become direct competitors for lead allocation, which isn't necessarily bad, but it changes the sourcing economics. an access investor sees almost every deal bc they're not perceived as a threat to control or ownership, but once a fund wants to take 10%+ and lead the round, some of the network goodwill it previously had becomes less available. (h/t @jmj) 10/ more LPs are demanding "upfront fees only, zero carry" on SPVs and co-investments. while counterintuitive (paying 5% upfront regardless of deal outcome) the math works heavily in the LP's favor on big winners: on a $2M co-invest with a 3x return, a 5% upfront fee costs $100K versus $800K under a traditional 20% carry structure, saving $700K. (h/t @samhuleatt) we're monitoring the situation in VC/LP world in @murphcapital monthly newsletter: murphcapital.substack.com/p/…