1/ If emerging managers are responsible for an estimated 40–70% of venture’s total gains (per Cambridge Associates), why does so much capital continue to consolidate into the largest platforms? @credistick's new piece argues venture may be over-concentrating. He says Funds I–III remain underfunded despite repeatedly showing up among top-performing vintages. He attributes EM outperformance to: smaller fund math, sharper focus, & differentiated access.

2/ At the same time, we just recorded an upcoming episode of Origins w/ @daveclark85, whose view is the direct opposite. David is a decades-long LP known for backing larger, franchise-caliber firms, including @a16z (whose performance we unpack in the episode).

3/ Venture is a power law business, but power laws are relative. A $30M fund needs a different magnitude of outcome to return capital than a multi-billion-dollar fund. If you’re having the small vs large debate, I think one has to understand these are fundamentally two different games, & there is more than one way to win in venture.