I am curious about the implications actually. Wondering how much is the impact of crowd-funding / public micro-funding on deal quality and deal flow for these traditional VC firms (Mattermark anything?)? Why are the VCs lowering their fund size so rapidly? I know it's still early on to even ask this, but a discussion went on those lines in one of the hallway conversations recently.
> Wondering how much is the impact of crowd-funding / public micro-funding on deal quality and deal flow for these traditional VC firms (Mattermark anything?)? Why are the VCs lowering their fund size so rapidly?
Crowd-funding is a negligible factor, at least thus far.
Venture capital has simply underperformed the broad stock market. This looks even worse on a risk-adjusted basis, because riskier assets are supposed to outperform safer assets.
As a result, pension funds and university endowments have been cutting back their allocation to venture capital. Less money = smaller VC funds.
The reason VC worked out for Yale was because nobody else knew about VC. When every other university adopted the Yale model, VC stopped outperforming other investments.
