Peter SerVaas

Too many founders still buy into outdated financing myths like waiting on SBA loans that won’t come, refusing to lease equipment, or avoiding debt like it’s toxic. The truth? Smart businesses use capital to move faster. Debt isn’t the enemy. Waiting too long to scale is. Don’t let pride in bootstrapping hold you back when the market’s moving. Financial literacy is as critical as your product. Know your numbers, challenge the myths, and grow with intention. #SmallBizFinance #FoundersMindset #Entrepreneurship

3

You don't need a Co-GP, you just need to hire a Venture Partner... A venture partner is a professional affiliated with a venture capital (VC) firm who works on a part-time or project-specific basis. They leverage their expertise and network to contribute to the firm's investment strategies and portfolio management, without being a full-time member of the firm. Key Responsibilities Deal Sourcing: Venture partners actively search for and identify promising startups that align with the VC firm's investment criteria. Strategic Advice: They provide guidance to portfolio companies on various aspects, including product development, market entry, and scaling operations. Portfolio Management: Venture partners may be involved in monitoring the performance of existing investments and providing support to portfolio companies. Networking: They leverage their extensive industry connections to connect startups with potential investors, partners, and customers. How They Differ from General Partners Full-time vs. Part-time: General partners are full-time employees of the VC firm, while venture partners typically work on a part-time or project-specific basis. Decision-Making Authority: General partners typically have the final say on investment decisions, while venture partners may advise but not have the authority to approve investments. Accountability: General partners have a higher level of personal accountability and are responsible for the overall performance of the fund, while venture partners have a more specialized focus. Compensation: Venture partners often receive carried interest, a share of the profits from successful investments, rather than a fixed salary. They may also be compensated with a combination of fees and carried interest, depending on the specific agreement with the VC firm. ~ Reference Google AI

16

3 Comments

If you've ever been interested in learning VC or setting up a VC Fund for yourself, then this Saturday's class of the Beyond Venture VC Training Program isn't one you're going to want to miss. Last Saturday we covered the anatomy of a VC fund and the key components and stakeholders in a fund’s structure: Limited Partners (LPs): Pension funds, endowments, family offices, sovereign wealth funds, HNWIs. Capital commitment and capital calls Preferred return (hurdle rate) expectations Rights (e.g., LPAC seats, transparency clauses) General Partners (GPs): GP commitment (typically 1–2% of fund size) Fiduciary duties to LPs Economics (carry split, clawbacks, reinvestment provisions) Carried Interest The profit share GPs receive, typically 20% after the preferred return is met. Management Fees: Annual fees (1.5%–2.5%) used to run the fund. Impact on net IRR etc This week we are going deeper into those concepts and also Fund Formation & Capital Raising We'll walk through the process of setting up and raising a fund: Raising Capital: GP pitch decks and data rooms Anchor LP strategies First close vs. final close dynamics Fund Terms & Economics: Term sheets, side letters, and key terms Commitment period, recycling provisions Fee and carry structures based on fund stage and strategy Legal Setup: Legal entities (e.g., Delaware LP, GP LLC, management company) Regulatory considerations (e.g., SEC Form D, AIFMD in Europe) Fund documentation (LPA, PPM, Subscription Agreements) and much more. You don't want to miss this, if you haven't already registered, register below, after 12am on the 13th of June, new applications won't be accepted. https://lnkd.in/d5mStkJ6

8

If you’re in the business of buying companies—   Grant Hensel shared a list of sources to find potential sellers, and Tier 4 is worth checking out.   Business registries, permits, and other records can be particularly helpful now that we’re entering a major ownership handoff.   An estimated 12 million small businesses are owned by someone over 55. Many have no succession plan, no heir lined up, and no advisor running a process.   That's why buying an established, “Boomer-owned” business can be a stronger wealth play than starting from zero. You’re buying proven demand, existing cash flow, and an operating system that already works.   Case in point:   Engineers Ashley Linkewich and Joe Gaebel bought K&F Fabrications in 2024 from a retiring Baby Boomer couple. The business has been operating since 1996 (nearly 30 years by the time they bought it), and reportedly geerates $2M–$3M annually.   They said it cost less than buying a house.   I’ll share the full list Grant shared in the comments.   _______ P.S. Join my 15K+ newsletter subscribers here: https://lnkd.in/dNVbGxXv   Exclusive weekly email, with thoughts on health, money, family, and more.   Credit: Grant Hensel / Entrepreneurial Capital

36

6 Comments

Good founders view fundraising as a funnel, like any other sales effort. ↔ What many don’t realize is that investors have funnels too. 💰 Because while founders need investment to fund their company, investors need to put money to work. They both need each other. ‣ They’re both looking to identify potential matches ‣ They both take hundreds of meetings hoping to find the right one. ‣ Multiple meetings down the funnel serve to gain more information and weed out those that aren’t going to work. ‣ And both have a very limited of “yes slots” available. Founders only need a few investors to put together a round. And most investors can only make a few bets a year. 🎯 The takeaway: Founders would benefit by viewing fundraising not as pitching but as matching between two parties with their own needs, but who both need each other. ******************** ✉️ For more ideas like this, hit the link in my bio to subscribe to my newsletter ✍️ You'll also get my free "29-Second-Pitch Playbook" 📺 And check out the fun YouTube channel: @humbleconvictionstartups

7

2 Comments

The best advice for founders is also true for GPs. Just start. Launching a venture fund isn't about perfect timing or having every credential. It's about building momentum early and staying in motion longer than everyone else. Managers who apply to VC Lab Cohort 21 before March 23rd get immediate access to our Head Start program. You don't wait for orientation. You start building your fund the moment you're accepted. Direct 1:1 thesis feedback. Working sessions. Decile Hub access from day one. Peer accountability before the cohort starts. A 4 to 8 week runway before Week 1 begins. You arrive at orientation already in motion. Early deadline: March 23rd. Comment "HEADSTART" for the application link.

26

8 Comments

How I Vet Sponsors in Five Questions You don’t need a pitch deck. You need clear answers: ✅ What went wrong in a past deal and how did they fix it? ✅ Are they full-time or part-time operators? ✅ How do they manage downside? ✅ Are they personally invested? ✅ Will they show every fee, line by line? If they stall or dodge, I walk. The lesson: Strong operators lead with clarity. Weak ones lead with slides. 📬 If you’re evaluating deals or operators, my newsletter gives you tools that save time and money. Join here: https://lnkd.in/gNDgUg8N

6

7 Comments

The Verdict: Your Business Attractiveness Score Most owners believe their business is “above average.” Buyers don’t. This scorecard reflects how the market actually judges your company — not on effort, tenure, or hustle, but on risk, transferability, and durability. Where businesses really land: • 0–33%: Owner-dependent, high risk • 34–67%: Stable, but discounted • 68–83%: Best-in-class • 84–100%: Industry leader (multiple buyers, premium pricing) Here’s the hard truth: You don’t get paid for potential. You get paid for preparedness. Attractiveness isn’t cosmetic — it’s structural. Know your score before the market assigns it for you. #BusinessAttractiveness #ExitPlanning #ValueDrivers #MergersAndAcquisitions #BusinessOwners #SellSmart

6

4 Comments

Most founders ask "where should we expand?" The real question is: "are we actually ready?" This was a powerhouse panel at the Business Leader Summit with Aron Gelbard / Huib van Bockel / Isobel Stephen / Anthony Goodwin / Simon Gilson-Fox moderated by Jason Mahendran, and it delivered some brutally honest advice on global expansion. Here's what the panel who've done it shared with us: → Lesson 1: Max out your home market first. The starting point sounds obvious.  Get the model right at home before you look elsewhere. But it's more nuanced than that. If you're Tenzing, the UK energy drinks market is large enough to build a significant business. But if you're Bloom & Wild, the UK flower market is smaller, and investors will pressure you to go international before you feel ready. Know the size of your opportunity at home. → Lesson 2: Build the playbook before you pack your bags. Before you even think about entering a new market, do this: Create a detailed executional playbook of exactly how your model works at home. → Lesson 3: Score every market before you commit. The panel discussed having a clear framework for evaluating where to go next. Build a scorecard. Assess every factor that matters such as: → Consumer behaviour — how similar is it to your home market? → Competitive landscape — do you buy your way in or grow organically? → Political & regulatory environment — what are the hidden costs? → Existing advantage — do you have a partnership, a foothold, an edge? → Internal readiness — will this distract from your core growth? → Operational scalability — can your infrastructure stretch? → Pilot opportunity — is there a low-risk way to test before you commit? → Lesson 4: Never underestimate culture. Bloom & Wild learned it the hard way. This was the moment of the session that stopped the room. Bloom & Wild expanded into Germany. It worked. But they also went to France. It didn't. Why? Cultural appetite for a British brand was fundamentally different. The lesson: really interrogate your pilot and your data before you scale. Lesson 5: Look for what stays the same across every market. Amid all the differences — regulations, culture, competition — look for the constants. Try not to damage more than 10% of the model. If you were in 20 countries one day and each was 20% different, that is a recipe for complexity and potential disaster. Anthony Goodwin put it brilliantly. In recruitment, the characteristics of successful leaders are identical across every market they operate in: Resilience. Initiative. Curiosity. Outside-the-box thinking. Your proposition may need to adapt. But if your core is built on something universal, that's your greatest asset when going global. Global expansion isn't a growth strategy.  It's a test of whether your foundations are strong enough to stretch. Another brilliant session from a remarkable day at the Business Leader Summit.

113

82 Comments

Check out the latest funding news from across the Techstars portfolio. → Zipline (Techstars 2011), a drone delivery and logistics startup, raises more than $600M in new funding, boosting its valuation to $7.6B, as it expands commercial deployments. → Language learning startup Preply (Techstars 2015) raises $150M and becomes the 23rd known unicorn from Techstars accelerators. → Hydrosat (Techstars 2019) raises $60M in Series B funding → Tive (Techstars 2017) receives a $20M investment, valuing the shipment-tracking systems developer at slightly more than $500M. → Parambil (Techstars 2023) raises an additional $6M in seed funding ($8M to date). → Seasats (Techstars 2021) receives $24M in Department of War APFIT funding to accelerate the fielding of its autonomous surface vessels. → Hawaiian Airlines’ newly announced $600M Kahuʻewai Hawai‘i Investment Plan features a strategic investment in Ampaire (Techstars 2018) to support hybrid-electric aviation in the islands. → Fintalo (Techstars 2025) secures $500K+ in oversubscribed Pre-Seed funding. → PraxisPro (Techstars 2024) closes an oversubscribed $6M seed round. → Samara Aerospace (Techstars 2024) closes $10M seed round to help bring more stability to sats in orbit. → MyARC (Techstars 2022), a platform that enables fitness creators to train their communities at scale, secures £1.5M investment. Massive congratulations to these incredible portfolio companies!   🔗  Read more at https://lnkd.in/dxtCTvrg 

164

7 Comments

“TAO changed my life as a builder.”  Seby, the founder of Resi Labs, on why BitTensor is gives builders an unfair advantage. Instead of begging for hiring, compute, and distribution, you plug into a network where incentives recruit the people, and people compete to give you the cheapest compute.

26

7 Comments

Most investors misunderstand their purpose. Aggregating and managing money isn't hard (apologies, fund managers). The real challenge is building great companies. Avoiding common scaling pains. Connecting with partners and potential acquirers. And supporting founders and teams to multiply enterprise value thoughtfully. View your role as an extension of those you back. Any fool can deploy capital and add controls. The best investors are active partners - not passive spectators. This mindset changes everything. And frankly, it's what founders desperately need from those who back them. → Watch the full episode here: https://linktw.in/nmtvml

33

2 Comments

When it comes to selling your business, what role do patents really play? In this podcast clip, Kurt shares why patents are often underestimated and how they can make a real difference to buyer confidence and valuation. It raises an important question: are business owners thinking about IP early enough in their journey, or only when it’s too late? 👉 We’ll share the full podcast in the comments.

9

1 Comment

**Thread by @Donversationz (https://lnkd.in/e5NBG9-B How did the internet change thriving businesses from the late 70's Let's take a company generating $100M as a broker of printing projects - Signs  - Flyers  - Magazines Most clients buy the prints as apart of marketing/advertising budget The internet comes along WWW first enables companies to use templated designs to build their prints, then send that data directly to the printer -->> cutting out the once thriving broker of printing projects Then WWW next enables companies to buy digital ads, not just printed. -->> cutting in half the once illustrious marketing/advertising budget which previously all went to the once thriving broker of printing projects The broker says, 'but there will be higher error rates, and there's no personal touch!' The client says it has the internet touch; everything is measurable, self-fulfilling, and automat'able. So the internet  - reduced costs: no need for middle man  - expanded supply: now budgets are spread thin  - expanded demand: now individuals have access to the same software conglomerate advertisers do Now let's comp this to AI...... AI is delivering on those same 3 promises? WWW: "Reduce cost - no need for middle man?"  AI: Same. No longer the same need for graphic designers, use AI to create your T-shit or Ad design in seconds. WWW: "Expand supply - now budgets are spread thin?"  AI: Same. The new battle ground for marketing/ad budgets will be getting into Chatbot conversations, "getting mentioned." WWW: "Expanded demand: now individuals have access to the same software conglomerate advertisers do."  AI: Same. Deep dive research reports no longer require a team of 5 people doing surveys and cast study work.. it requires one well crafted prompt to Google Gemini in deep-dive mode. So now let's ask those questions through the lens of a company a company like $ADBE, $INTU, $MSFT, $CRM, & $ADP..... Grok, read the above tweet, and the one it's attached to, then reply with your opinion on how those 3 market forces of reducing costs, expanding supply and expanding demand will impact these 5 conglomerates I listed at the end of prior tweet? ((GROK response: https://lnkd.in/eU_ptNQS)) This is genius. Good pt. They'll capture more value by shifting from "software licenses" to AI-orchestrated platforms, turning commoditization into stickier ecosystems. You're right, when the model shifts from pay per month, to pay per use, then the ecosystem can more easily retain users (if it's a great loved product) Ultimately, if they can adopt AI into their product ecosystem correctly, or buy and add on startups, they stand a very good chance at disrupting this AI narrative

2

In my years of working with business brokers, I've observed a critical disconnect that's costing professionals significant time and energy. Most brokers approach potential sellers with an aggressive transactional mindset, attempting to convert leads before understanding their genuine readiness for a sale. Recent research reveals a nuanced progression through seven distinct stages of seller preparedness - a journey that most brokers fundamentally misunderstand. Instead of recognizing where a potential seller truly sits in their decision-making process, many professionals default to high-pressure tactics that ultimately repel serious candidates. The transformative shift happens when brokers transition from lead chasing to strategic readiness cultivation. By mapping a seller's psychological and operational progression, brokers can provide precisely calibrated insights, resources, and support that align with each stage's unique requirements. Brokers implementing this systematic framework have reported reclaiming 15-20 hours weekly by eliminating unproductive pursuit of premature leads. The approach isn't about working harder, but working with greater strategic intelligence. This means developing communication protocols that respect a seller's natural decision timeline, offering education instead of immediate sales pressure, and creating value-driven touchpoints that build genuine trust. The result? More qualified interactions, higher conversion rates, and a reputation as a true advisory partner. How are you currently nurturing sellers who aren't immediately ready to transact? #BusinessBrokers #SellerReadiness #SystematicApproach

2

1 Comment

VCs: Your competitor raised $100M from the same LP you met at a conference. What did they do differently?   They treated it like a deal-sourcing operation, not a networking event.   Here are 19 conferences to build your LP pipeline👇   Venture Atlanta Conference - VC and startup showcase TechCrunch Disrupt - Tech startup and innovation SuperReturn North America - VC and early-stage investment conference RAISE Global Summit - VC and startup investment summit Money20/20 USA - Fintech and payments Web Summit - Technology and innovation Opal Group - Family office networking Carmo Companies - Private markets networking The East Coast Family Office & Wealth Management Conference - Family office networking Marty S.- Family office networkng Life Science Nation (LSN) - Real estate investment 22nd Annual Global ARC Boston - Alternative risk conference for institutional investors DC Finance's Global Family Office & High Net Worth Community - Family office networking California LP Summit - LP and institutional investors The Florida Family Office & High Net Worth Conference - Family office networking Florida Venture Forum - Early-stage VC and startups Angel Capital Association - Angel investor networking Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) - Institutional LP and private markets SuperVenture North America - VC networking   If you meet just 3 meaningful contacts per event, that's 57 potential opportunities for deals, partnerships, or LP commitments. And that's being conservative. Most events offer way more than 3 quality connections if you work them right.   The difference between a $10M fund and a $500M fund is how you work the room!   Which ones are you hitting in 2025?   🤝 Follow me for proven strategies that help VCs close more deals, raise larger funds, and build lasting LP relationships.

246

15 Comments

A mistake that kills consistency: every broker invents their own readiness definition. One rep says a seller is hot because they talked for an hour. Another rep says hot means financials are shared. A third rep says hot means “they sound serious.” When definitions vary, coaching fails and pipeline meetings become arguments. We push brokerages to standardize readiness language so the entire team can see the same funnel. Consistency is what allows you to scale quality without turning your process into bureaucracy. #SellerReadiness #PipelineManagement #BusinessBrokers #PredictablePipeline https://lnkd.in/ePsBhSuN

1

40%+ of Seed and Series A funding in 2026 is flowing into $100M+ rounds, as Zachary DeWitt recently highlighted. The market is making a big bet on mega rounds. I'm taking the under on their performance--I'd bet heavily on an index of regular-sized seeds vs the megas.   Here's what I think is happening. Ambitious founders surrounded by AI hype see Anthropic's and OpenAI's returns and think they need to do something similar. In their minds, this means raising huge rounds to fund NBA-level salaries for the most legible AI talent at Meta, Google, other AI labs, etc.   The problem is that this approach is fundamentally derivative. This is not how Anthropic, OpenAI, or any of the other most disruptive AI companies started. Disruption requires doing something that experts dismiss. If a startup requires raising mountains of cash to hire legions of expensive experts, it might have some degree of success, but it will not be disruptive.   Look, this is tricky. Anthropic raised giant early rounds and seems very mission-oriented, so I don't want to paint with too broad a brush here. That said, Anthropic's $124m Series A in 2021 was actually very unconventional in many respects, even in the context of a frothy 2021.   Besides being derivative (and thus not disruptive), this approach also selects for mercenary over missionary culture. And all things being equal, companies with missionary culture outperform. Because if you really care about solving a problem, you're willing to make sacrifices and do non-consensus things—not just copy what worked for the last wave.   So, why does this pattern persist despite these concerns?   The most economically dominant point is that the investors doing the big rounds make a lot of money on management fees. When partners at funds enjoy massive compensation from management fees, investment performance becomes a "nice-to-have."   To be fair, many of these partners are post-economic and are arguably more interested in hiring huge teams and building "platforms." The fees justified by mega rounds align nicely with the expense structure of empire-building. On the other hand, the smaller rounds are done by firms where the principals are making much less on management fees and have much more incentive to see a return on the capital via carry.   The mega firms would surely retort that many of the smaller rounds are done by firms that are here today, gone tomorrow. And there's truth to that. Mega firms with billions of assets are inherently more stable. At the same time, those firms are fundamentally targeting much lower returns. It's trade-offs all the way down.   So when I look at that 40%+ number, I see capital flowing into a pattern that selects for derivative thinking and mercenary culture, with an underlying incentive structure that ensures it keeps happening.   And that's why I'm taking the under on the performance of that 40%.

30

7 Comments