The average Web3 VC pitch sounds like ours did three years ago. "We have deep relationships across the ecosystem." "We add value beyond capital." "Our network is our edge." It's not that any of these statements is a lie; it's that everyone says them, which makes them effectively meaningless.
Liquidity providers (LPs) have heard this pitch so many times that the words have lost all shape. And yet somehow, the industry just keeps photocopying the same deck. Impressive logo slide. Vague thesis. Three bullet points about "value add." A track record that, for most emerging managers, doesn't yet exist. Repeat until funded, or not.
My colleagues and I at TBV spent a lot of time asking ourselves what we actually had that no one else did. The answer, eventually, was humbling: not much. So we built something different.
Here's the thing that the data keeps trying to tell the industry and the industry keeps ignoring: emerging managers actually outperform. Studies consistently show they reach top-quartile performance more often than established funds and deliver materially higher returns on average. The upside is real. The problem is entirely structural — emerging managers can't communicate a clear reason to clients to back them over others, so capital flows to brands rather than potential.
When we built TBV, we decided the pitch had to be a product, not a promise. The question we kept returning to was: what does a fund actually own? Not who it knows. Connections are not defensible. What has it built, what data has it generated, and what platform value does it create for founders? That's defensible.
The answer we landed on was events. We weren’t looking for just a networking play or branding exercise. We wanted to develop a people-centric deal engine. Web3 runs on conferences. Everyone already knows this. Founders travel thousands of miles to shake hands at side events. VCs pay enormous sponsorship fees for access to people they could probably have reached by email. The ROI calculus has always been fuzzy at best. What we wanted to do was flip the model: instead of paying for access, build the environment. Own the data. Create the relationships at scale and feed them directly back into sourcing, diligence and value for everyone involved.
In 2025, our event series drew over 43,000 attendees and more than 100 partners. That didn't happen by accident, and it wasn't just a marketing stunt. It was deliberate infrastructure. Every interaction, every connection, every emerging trend spotted in those rooms feeds into TBX, our AI-driven deal engine. The events and the fund are the same flywheel.
"We're not the only ones rethinking this. What's interesting is how different the approaches are and how few of them look anything like a traditional fund."
Another VC firm, Outlier Ventures, figured this out from a different angle. They leaned into the accelerator model — building a genuine platform of support around early-stage founders rather than just writing checks and showing up for board meetings. The result is a fund with over 300 portfolio companies and a real reason for founders to choose them over others with just more AUM. Paradigm went in a completely different direction: they got technical. They don't just invest in protocols; they contribute to them. That kind of depth is genuinely hard to replicate, and LPs can see it.
What these models share, and what the next generation of interesting managers will share, is that the fund itself is a product with utility beyond capital. The question isn't "how do we tell a better story?" It's "how do we build something that makes the story self-evident?"
The good news is there isn’t just one answer. The events model works for us. The accelerator model works for Outlier. Deep technical contribution works for Paradigm. What doesn't work, what has never really worked, and what LPs are increasingly unwilling to pretend works, is a pitch built entirely on relationships you can't show and value you can't measure.
Web3 moves fast enough that the managers who build real infrastructure now will be very hard to displace later. The ones still writing decks about their networks in three years will find the room has quietly emptied out around them. I'm genuinely curious to see what other models emerge. Competition in this space, when it's actually focused on doing something different, is the best thing that could happen to it.