Nino Ulsamer

Most Pioneer Fund companies send monthly updates (some quarterly), and we read every update across the portfolio of 500+ companies. I actually still personally read every update. Most startups send updates with these sections, and it works well: - High level metrics (revenue, maybe another key metric or two like GMV or MAU, growth since last month, cash in bank, burn rate, runway). Many of the most consistently-growing or fastest-growing companies also include a revenue graph. - Highlights - Lowlights - Investor asks - Maybe a couple investor shoutouts from last month - Some short commentary on what the current priorities are, what's coming next, etc. Some founders like to include a special section or two. A few of my favorites: - Photos or videos of technical progress for hardware companies - One of our founders sends a self rating on a scale of 0-10 for the month, along with detailed explanation. Pretty impressive. - A zoomed out view of how the mission/vision/strategy is specifically evolving - Some have very detailed additional sections that are specific to their business. E.g. manufacturing updates, distribution updates, regulatory updates, etc. Each investor update may only take a few minutes to read, but they are the summary of the hard work of an entire team for an entire month, often fighting uphill or sprinting downhill or exploring the idea maze. We're always grateful reading them.

79

8 Comments

📰 Solo VCs are rising in popularity once again. This means only one General Partner is leading the firm, versus multiples. 💔 Why? There are GP breakups going on all around us after partnerships have been tested by the market for years now. The bar to co-found a venture firm with a partner is very high. Those GPs that thought they might graft another one on in the short term to share the load are stopping in their tracks to deeply consider those implications. 🌱 Many are opting to bring in more junior talent and grow them into Partner roles instead. It’ll take time and capital to be able to do that as the firm grows. Talked to 3 diff GPs about this at dinner last night and we’re all leaning toward that approach in our short and long term planning. 💡 FYI - this is just an observation of the moment we’re in. There are plenty of firms thriving with full partnerships as well as solo GPs. But it’s worth calling out that new partnerships are particularly risky right now, especially if the partners haven’t worked with each other for a long time.

32

Why #PY6 is All-In on Vertical Fintechs At Pygma, we’re shaping the future of vertical SaaS by embedding financial services directly into industry-specific software. Vertical fintech isn’t just the future; it’s the now. This approach enables startups to: 1. 10x their revenue by integrating services like payments, lending, and insurance. 2. Build stronger customer loyalty by addressing specific industry needs. 3. Create an impenetrable moat around their business, securing long-term growth. If you're a fintech founder ready to scale, this is your moment. Our program is designed to help you grow faster and dominate your niche market. 👉 Join our waiting list and secure your spot in PY6’s exclusive fintech cohort! https://tally.so/r/mRRPRP #Fintech #VerticalSaaS #Growth #VC #Pygma

18

1 Comment

We continue to see a thaw in the "VC winter" and good news from Carta showing that VC fundraising is up 17% YoY (US data), although early stage lags later stage. This may be ok however, as previously late stage was stuck and there needs to be a balance. You can't shovel money into early stage companies if they cannot raise later stage capital. Increasing later stage capital means rising confidence in exits which is great news. In order to return to normalcy we will need to see exits that return capital to VC LPs and let them recycle that capital into fresh investments. Too much potential liquidity is now stuck in older funds. Will 2025 be the year?

23

1 Comment

It’s so important for founders to carefully review funding terms. Good legal advice can help you avoid big problems later. This info is crucial for protecting your startup. 🙌 #StartupSuccess #Funding #LegalAdvice #sviyp #siliconvalleyinyourpocket

1

Google offered ~60x revenue to Wiz! Let that sink in - ~60x the annual revenue of Wiz. I admire the founders and investors who can say NO to the US$23B valuation. Wiz closed 2023 with US$350Mn ARR (current trailing revenue might be US$400M). Even if the company hits US$1B in late 2024 (looks unlikely) or mid-2025 (most likely), they should be valued at 15x (good case scenario) forward revenue of US$1.5B (assumption), implying a fair market valuation of US$22.5B in mid-2025. So the offer of US$23B from Google today is significantly better than the projected fair value of Wiz next year. But the founders (and mostly the investors as well) predict a much larger payday if they go IPO. I feel it is a great call by the founders, given their prior experience, their execution to date and their strong market share-grabbing capabilities. PS: Wiz reached US$350M ARR and US$12B in valuation within 4 years of launching the company! Phew! #FounderLife #Entrepreneurship #Startup #VentureCapital #Founders #Investments

58

11 Comments

How do investors price pre-seed rounds?  This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of fundraising.  Oftentimes, founders want some framework to better understand what market value is when raising capital into their business.  Public equities and later stage privates have a well defined matrix of revenue/margin profiles that dictate valuation, surely there must be some framework for arriving at a pre-seed valuation. So how do investors price startups that are pre-revenue, or have maybe one of two early customers? In reality, pricing is more a byproduct of a VC fund’s portfolio construction model than any metric of the underlying business.  VCs model out portfolios to include a certain number of companies with an ownership target in each startup.  There are variations to portfolio construction, and the chosen strategy will have a direct impact on the types of rounds a fund will participate in. For example, an early stage fund might raise a $60M fund to lead investments in 30 companies and target 12.5% ownership.   After management fees, there is ~$48M in investable capital.  Assuming a fund holds back ~30% for reserves(this number varies across funds) that leaves ~$30M to invest in initial checks.   In this case a fund must average $1M checks at $8M valuations to reach their intended ownership target of 12.5%.   When you are in diligence with a fund, they are first and foremost trying to get to a yes on the investment opportunity.  When arriving at a valuation though, the math outlined above is the determining factor, more so than any multiple of revenue on the business, or the stated desires of where a founder wants to raise capital.  At the end of the day, a VC is trying to arrive at a valuation that works within their portfolio strategy. This means they are very unlikely to price a deal at $15M cap given the aforementioned portfolio construction, as they would either not own enough($1M = 6.67% ownership) or have to cut too large a check( $1.875M = 12.5%). The thing that is most likely to move an investor off their target valuation is another investor in the picture that is driving the price higher, but even then there are upward bound limits of how high an investor is willing to price a deal. I always advise our port cos to ask an investor early in conversations what their ideal check size/valuation is to make sure there is alignment with the founder's objectives.    

57

4 Comments

Converting PoCs to Contracts - A Lesson in Difficult Conversations Like going from dating to co-habitating, moving your first customer from pilot to contract is a Big Leap moment for early stage startups. Waiting too long to have the conversation is the most common mistake. You are afraid of rejection, so you never learn if your product is making life easier for your customer, let alone how much they will pay. The truth is, once your pilot is launched, you can't be too early in discussing what it will take to move to a contract. I just got off the phone with a startup CEO who told of countless meetings, waiving integration fees, hiring a dedicated employee and more all to get their first customer live. After several revised timelines and a reorg, the engagement was going sideways until he said "We can't do this for free anymore. We need to move to contract or we are done here." At first, the customer balked. But once they assessed the situation and realized how crucial the software was, they changed their mind. The startup is now on track to sign their first big deal. That wouldn't have happened without a difficult conversation. Early stage startups are fragile. Moving from pilot to contract is the first real test of so many things - your product value, your customer success, and the real competition. Unless you test your relationship by taking the leap, you'll never figure out if you've got something real.

13

1 Comment

The world is going through the 5 stages of grief over AI right now. First, they were in denial. They pretended it was a fad, more VC-fueled hype. "Machine learning is not new, AI is just a dumb parrot", they said. Then they got angry with the AI companies, shocked at how good the models were at producing images, songs, and videos. As the outrage lost steam, they tried bargaining with regulators to put lightning in a bottle. "We were wrong about AI, but now it's getting out of hand", they said. Now depression is setting in as AI companies just introduced a slew of incredible improvements to their models. Eventually, just like sewing machines, computers, or the internet - the scoffers will be forced to accept the new normal, or go extinct. Company leaders can bury their head in the sand by responding with denial, anger, or fear. Or we can choose to stay ahead of the curve by being excited, curious to learn, and eager to experiment. I've been speaking to some of the largest enterprises in Australia, about using AI to supercharge their sales teams. They're excited - how about you?

20

3 Comments

Ten years ago the early stage investing game wasn't gamified. People used to take time to talk. Sit down and have serious and deep respectful conversations. Then Sequoia invented the 12 page template format and everyone conformed (ironic for pure innovation engine) and then YC asked people to say what they had to say in 50 characters and we had a "clique". Now we have the one minute templates being evaluated like a game show, Truth or Consequences, literally, fill in the blanks and make the numbers big. Hmm maybe that's why 90+% of startups fail. Maybe the founders aren't the problem. One after the other. Does anyone else see a trend here? I love VCs, I mean it, and respect them big time super smart and dedicated people but WTF? Where does this go? Isn't this demeaning to founders? Is the next thing the "10 sec postage stamp template?" It feels like it's all a freakin' TV game show

14

3 Comments

#TISeed #ImpactBillionsRevenueTrillions #SanjayBhargavaMentoredFund Sanjay Bhargava is on the scaled up disruption path again. I have known him for more than 13 years of more than 20 years, since he and his better half Anita came back post the PayPal buyout in 2002 by eBay. For me the couple has the flavour of Don Quixote, wanting the Muskian Mars-shots on Earth ! They have involved themselves in IAC ( India Against Corruption), Anita has been involved in Clean Up Delhi campaigns, been shadow Municipal Councillor to see how Indian Bureaucracy stymies much progressive movement but then both worked on setting up International Innovation Corps (now headquartered in University of Chicago), to help top bureaucracy get talent from top US & Indian universities to envision & implement big transformations. They were involved in setting up Bharosa Club along with their son and his partner, to encourage direct selling and transparent data analysis of mutual funds. Now Sanjay is going solo. He wants young teams anywhere to attempt impact disruptions of planetary scale, and willing to put 100,000 USD of his own, help raise the other 400,000 USD and mentor through governments and his networks, these pilots. And he desires to see teams from anywhere in the world, working on all sides of the Economic & Social Pyramid, across geographies to build a Balanced Sustainable, Healthy and Prosperous planet, inspired by the Gita, he doesn't care if he succeeds but he is going to do his bit. And the prosperity index for him includes good health of both it's peoples and nature. He believes the world can live better lives with lesser consumption. These are the top professionals, who have seen the West & East and want the enterprise pathways out of the ideological & geopolitical impasses. And what are the ideas that will get this support? There are many trillion dollar impact ideas possible from any domain. These examples are just pointers. Poverty Eradication Not Just Alleviation: Reimagining responsible credit, welfare, and UBI Target: 1B+ users, $10+ ARPU Global Youth Platform: Serving the 18-45 demographic Focus: Community and global prosperity Target: 1B+ users, $10+ ARPU Sustainable Employment: Bridging global labor market inefficiencies Solving worker surplus/shortage mismatches Focus on scalable, ethical solutions Smart Villages: Innovative rural development Climate change mitigation Replicable, customizable solutions Investment Focus Focus on trillion-dollar impact potential Deep involvement until Series A AI-powered solutions for global scale Sanjay's Track Record : PayPal pioneer (Employee #7 at X.com) Former Country Head, Starlink India Led Citibank's growth from 1% to 36% market share in Thailand Scaled Citibank India to process 5% of national GDP with just 6 branches Endorsed by industry titans: Elon Musk Founder & CEO, Tesla, SpaceX Reid Hoffman Co-founder, LinkedIn David Sacks First COO, PayPal

8

7 Comments

Startup decks vs Business plans. It's accepted that a startup needs a deck. Dax Dasilva of Lightspeed Commerce made an important point on 20VC. Writing a business plan - including financial projections - is an important step. It requires discipline. It provides a rigorous framework for thinking deeply about the problem you're trying to solve. Harry Stebbings countered that he doesn't even want to see a deck since it's all dreams. We spent a lot of time and energy on our business plan with the expectation that we would show it to no one ever. The business plan was part of our roadmap for the company. We researched customers - including having 50+ conversations. We wanted to understand them: their background, their interests, their presence on social media. We also wanted to understand how they were evaluated by leadership and how integrated they were with the business of the company they were protecting. We researched pricing both with potential customers and other products in our industry to find out if OpEx or CapEx was a better fit. How did they buy today? How would they like to buy? We did market research to understand the verticals and map the right entry point - we were wrong but that doesn't reduce the value of the research. We looked at competitors in depth to understand what they were seeing that we weren't. Dax is right. This is an invaluable document that should be updated every year - the company is changing, the market is changing, there's more feedback about price and ICP. It's not for sharing with the outside world. It's a map for driving forward. Decks won't get you investment - VCs invest in people. We make decks but we know they don't tell our story. The deck is a calling card. Dax and Harry are both right. https://lnkd.in/e25M82xY

15

1 Comment

For founders, VCs with a depleted fund (and no fresh funding) are a no-go. Which is why we’re back this week, with a list of firms who just closed new funds.👇🏻 🔴 Singapore based Antler raised its second $72M fund to focus on startups in Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia. 🔴 Boston based Flint Capital closed its third $160M fund to focus on IT, cybersecurity, fintech, and digital health startups. 🔴 London based Balderton Capital raised $615M for its Early Stage Fund IX and $685M for its Growth Fund II to support European startups. 🔴 Toronto based ​Radical Ventures​ raised its ​newest $800M fund​ to focus on AI companies.

7

How to End a VC Pitch Meeting The end of a pitch meeting is as critical as the presentation itself. While many founders spend the bulk of their time perfecting the pitch, the last 10 minutes of the meeting require as much attention. Abruptly ending a meeting leaves investors uncertain or disengaged. A structured conclusion, however, can lead to a clear path forward. Here are three objectives every founder should aim to achieve when wrapping up a VC meeting: Define a Clear Next Step Never leave a meeting without defining the next step. Investors have multiple demands on their time. Without a defined follow-up, your pitch will get lost in the shuffle. Ask directly when the VC’s internal meeting will take place. If they say their investment team meets on Wednesdays, say, “Great, I’ll follow up with you on Thursday.” This tactic demonstrates initiative and keeps the momentum going. If the VC hesitates to define a next step, it’s a red flag. It indicates they aren’t interested in moving forward. Don’t waste time chasing uninterested investors—focus your energy on those who show commitment. Guide Their Evaluation Process Most VCs won’t know how to evaluate your company. It’s your job to guide them. Highlight the metrics that matter in your industry and set the framework for how they should assess your business. For example, you might say, “Retention is a key indicator of our success. Have a look at industry benchmarks and see how our numbers compare.” Or, “To understand our customers' pain points, I recommend speaking with players in this particular segment of the ecosystem.” If you have a supportive paying customer or an industry expert contact, feel free to suggest a reference call. By giving them a roadmap for evaluation, you help the VC align their assessment with the most critical factors that reflect your company’s potential. Set Terms for Further Information Exchange If the VC requests documents you didn’t cover in the meeting—such as a financial plan—this is a chance to secure another engagement. For example, you can say, “I’ll provide the pitch deck we just covered, and let’s schedule a time to go through the detailed financial plan.” This keeps the dialogue active and ensures that further engagement is tied to your next move. It’s not just about sharing data—it’s about maintaining engagement and moving toward the next step in the process. Each piece of information you provide should act as a bridge to further discussions. Ending with Control The key to ending a VC pitch meeting is to maintain control of the process. Defining a clear next step, guiding the evaluation process, and negotiating further engagement are all critical components of a successful close. By managing these elements, you ensure that the conversation doesn't fizzle out but instead continues to progress. Reserve the final 10 minutes of your meeting to wrap up effectively—because how you end the meeting might just determine whether or not you secure the investment.

30

7 Comments

VC Secrets: How I Use GRR and NRR Signals to Identify Investable Software Startups When evaluating software startups for investment, I rely on two key retention metrics: Net Revenue Retention (NRR) and Gross Revenue Retention (GRR). These metrics reveal how well a company retains its revenue and grows it through upsells, providing clear indicators of scalability and product-market fit. 📊 NRR > 100% and GRR > 80% are my go-to benchmarks. Here’s how I break it down: 🚀 Rocket Ship (High NRR, High GRR): These startups are ideal candidates because they retain and expand revenue, signaling product-market fit and efficient scaling potential. 🪣 Leaky Bucket (High NRR, Low GRR): Growth through upsells, but customer churn is dragging retention down. I ask: Is the ICP misaligned? How quickly does the product deliver value? These insights help me assess whether the company can plug revenue leaks. 🔗 Shackled Sprinter (Low NRR, High GRR): Great retention but no upsell strategy—my focus shifts to understanding their upsell/cross-sell strategy. Even great retention won’t lead to the scalable growth I seek if expansion opportunities are lacking. 🧟‍♂️ Walking Dead (Low NRR, Low GRR): Weak product-market fit with high churn. High risk without a clear pivot strategy. I look for potential pivots or I pass if no clear path to recovery exists. 📍 Sometimes, just one is enough: While I usually consider both metrics, sometimes one carries more weight than the other, depending on the startup's stage. For example, early-stage companies with strong GRR show retention potential, while growth-stage companies with high NRR indicate scalability. 👉 Bottom Line: By analyzing GRR and NRR within the retention dimension, I gain insights into how well a company maintains and grows revenue from its existing customer base. In addition, I evaluate the economic dimension through unit economics to understand the underlying financial sustainability. Together, these metrics reveal a company’s growth potential, with segment-level insights often uncovering hidden risks or opportunities that guide investment decisions and post-investment support. #VentureCapital #SaaS #Fundraising #SeriesA #Seed #Startups #CustomerRetention

29

3 Comments

Would Airbnb and Stripe still exist without Y Combinator? YC’s strategy is fascinating: they invest in startups that often operate in the same space. Why? Because YC believes it’s not about being the first or most original—it’s about execution. This approach reveals a key insight about startups - success isn’t defined by novelty… ….but by the ability to build, iterate, and execute better than others. By backing founders with diverse experiences, YC fosters a competitive yet collaborative environment. This drives continuous innovation and refinement, rather than simply chasing disruptive ideas. What’s your take? Does this approach strengthen the startup ecosystem, or does it limit true innovation? #YCombinator #Founders #VentureCapital #Startups Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eB5thmaC

6

1 Comment

In big companies it’s often not build vs buy. It’s build and buy and do nothing, simultaneously. Many big companies we worked with at Propeller were, at any given moment: • Running internal teams/programs developing competitive products,  • Exploring alternative, overlapping partners, and • Contemplating increasing, pausing or reallocating investment altogether. You’ll do better if you assume big companies aren’t making a binary, or irrevocable, decision.

40

2 Comments

🙃 💸 Flink raised $1.5B... and is now valued at less than $1B Let's move beyond the snarky comments of how such a feat is possible. The German quick-commerce startup just raised an additional $150M. And that's actually quite interesting: 1️⃣ If valuation has been slashed (from a peak at $5B) to below $1B, it is a first sign of maturity. 2️⃣ There is a focus on profitability: the startup has broken even in its two main markets: Germany and The Netherlands. It wants to use the money to further strengthen its position there. Done are the days when startups were only focusing on growth and expansion. 3️⃣ That's the last European pure player operating in Europe (JOKR now only operates in Latin America). It is also among the last players operating at scale in developed economies. So, what it does and how successfully it can grow will be key to the future of quick-commerce. 📈 I am quite confident in the future of quick-commerce. It answers a consumer need, but it needs to be operated with care, notably in developed economies, due to high labour costs. 👉 : https://lnkd.in/gmpcNhNP #startup #commerce #grocery #delivery #foodtech

29