all perspectives 2025

What Surprised Me Most About Seed Investing: Lessons from Two Years at Laconia

I took some time off over the holiday break to reflect on the past year, and I realized it has already been two years since I joined the team at Laconia. 

Two years ago, when I first joined the Laconia team, I shared why I fell in love with the team. From the outset, three core reasons simply set them apart. First, their values center on making venture capital more accessible and transparent. They actively break down the industry's traditional barriers through open office hours, education, mentorship, and honest feedback to founders. Second, their investment approach is practical and disciplined. They focus on backing mature founders who solve real business problems, and they provide hands-on support in sales acceleration, operational execution, and capital strategy. Finally, their commitment to diversity and inclusion isn't just talk; they've built it into every aspect of their operations, resulting in a diverse team and portfolio as well as a community of 1,500 venture fellows worldwide. 

As 2025 comes to a close, I wanted to share some key learnings about Laconia and seed investing.

With wide reach and focused systems, we can source at scale

When I first joined Laconia, my constant question was: where shall I be spending most of my time? Can we find data to suggest that one source is better than another? I quickly learned that to avoid a stale and homogeneous pipeline, Laconia’s approach is to consistently and deliberately widen our reach and then apply rigorous order, ensuring we have a systemic and repeatable approach to meeting exceptional founders at scale. 

I soon found myself sharing knowledge, mentoring founders, and collaborating with different communities that support early-stage founders. Some examples include:

  • Mentoring founders and giving a “friendly investor perspective” during open office hours with NextNYC, MIT, NYU Summer Launchpad, ERA accelerator, Center for Accelerating Financial Equity (CAFE) and many more; 

  • Joining panels on seed investing market trends like J.P. Morgan StartOut Innovators Summit, Forum Venture: State of the Market and being a judge at HearstLab & the Female Founder Collective for the Built to Scale Pitch Demo Day, alongside Eastin Rossell of  HearstLab, Claire Biernacki, of BBG Ventures and Rebecca Minkoff;

  • Hosting community events with brilliant co-investors in the seed stage, like our Female Founders Dinner with JPM Startup Banking and Rhian Horton of Stellation; Founders Breakfast with Lucy Deland of Inspired Capital and B2B Lunch with Lynx Collective. 

  • Participating in quarterly coffee meetups with NextNYC, inviting co-investors such as Yuriy Dovzhansky of Visible Ventures, Nika Duan of inflect Health, and Priyanka Rao of Rackhouse

  • Working closely with ecosystem communities like the NYC EDC Venture Access Alliance and All Raise 

  • Even making my first TV appearance at Sherveen Mashayekhi’s The Feedback Loop 

Over and above spending time out with founders and investors across the ecosystem, we take cold inbound seriously through a structured intake and review process. 

Our multiplier is the Venture Cooperative: a 1,500+ person fellowship across 30+ countries (80% from underrepresented backgrounds) that extends our reach and sharpens our skills. Fellows learn to source and evaluate companies, and they often become co-investors, collaborations, and even LPs. Two years ago, I wouldn’t have guessed I’d be teaching venture; now, I get to train the next generation and even make my first investment at Laconia directly through this community.

A meaningful share of our portfolio (roughly 40%) comes through these non-traditional channels (ecosystem events, Venture Cooperative fellows, demo days and direct inbound). 

All of this activity may sound like a lot! But paired with deep relationships across hundreds of co‑investors, operators, and founder communities, our openness helps us meet teams early and surface non‑obvious opportunities in messy, mission‑critical industries like finance, healthcare, climate, and the built world.

Two years in and I am learning it is really just a structured serendipity of sorts: a wide funnel in, a rigorous filter out, and a butterfly effect that keeps expanding where great founders find us.

Being human really matters; it is why we win

I went into venture thinking that winning competitive deals would come down to negotiating the right valuations or terms (hello, law degree), or sharpening my negotiation skills (hello, career in sales). But what I have discovered is that founders are looking for a genuine human partnership, partners with whom they feel comfortable picking up the phone when things go south, not just for the nice photo ops.

In a world of automated emails from VCs, consolidation across VC funds, and “right to play” seed checks from multi-stage firms, being human has become our competitive advantage. 

We run an efficient and transparent process, keeping the founders in mind. We turn the process on its head: we all meet founders for initial pitch calls, and if there is an initial fit, we immediately move to a meeting with the full investment team. The goal is getting to a ‘No’ as soon as possible if it is not a fit and only running due diligence when we are all interested, saving founders' time. We also focus on validating the value proposition by connecting founders with prospective customers (vs. focusing solely on speaking with existing ones), which means that whether or not we end up investing, we bring value from day one.

Our investment process also includes workshop-style meetings where we go through the operations and go-to-market of the business, and founders get to see who we are, how we think, and what working with us would be like. 

I think of this as “Being human, where it counts”. It starts with our investment process and continues through the relationship. We care about our founders as people – their families, health, and lives outside work – not as a means to productivity, but as an intrinsic value. That culture shows up especially when things get hard. Founders see this in our first onboarding call, when the check has cleared and we want to know all about what challenges they are facing. 

A story I loved hearing drives this home. When a portfolio company shut down right before the holidays with all of the founder’s relatives on the other side of the country, Jeff invited the founder to his own family’s Thanksgiving. No press. No performative posts. Just care. This humanity also drives better outcomes; when founders trust us, we can have the hard conversations early and fix what matters.

I guess that is why founders refer other founders to us and come back after exiting their first company with us, and why we win 97% of the deals we commit to.

Two years ago, I thought that winning would be all about negotiating; today, I know it is actually about being human.

Impact isn’t measured by check size

Before joining Laconia, I already knew size really doesn't matter; with boutique funds and a 4-person team, their reputation has already reached far beyond their size. That is why I joined them. 

But having now sat on boards holding different roles (as a lead investor and otherwise), the thing I am most proud of is that no matter what size check we’ve written and how many years have passed, we support our portfolio founders relentlessly, even when everyone else may have moved on. 

I have seen this firsthand in multiple cases. We don’t just post online when our portfolio companies are successful – we are also there when things get tough. In one example, a pre-seed founder with weeks of payroll left, but so much momentum and potential, needed someone to continue to believe in them and help them fight another day. While other investors may have decided to allocate their time differently, we doubled down. We made a soft landing plan in case we needed it, and then we pushed full-steam ahead with fundraising support. We believed in the founder, the opportunity, and the upside potential, and we supported them as they closed a very successful raise and surpassed a key inflection point.

In other examples, our now later stage founders, with multiple series A and B investors around the table, still come to us for capital strategy advice and introductions to future financing partners. They know they can always pick up the phone for advice, and they see us as a consigliere. 

Two years in, I’ve learned that we have two important promises in this job. Our founders know that we always have their backs, regardless of the check size we write. And for our LPs, they know that we don’t give up. Maybe not all companies will succeed, but we will be sure to go down fighting.

Finding diamonds in the rough requires keeping an open mind

The last point brings us back to our core investment thesis and how it has evolved over the years.

While venture investing is often criticized for “pattern-matching” and chasing signals, trends, and hype, investing at Laconia has challenged my thinking and helped me work hard on keeping my biases in check. I’ve learned that by not over-indexing on pattern-matching, we bring a fresh perspective to finding unique opportunities. 

Though we have had the same focus for ten years – companies that bring systematic order to complex workflows – the way in which this plays out has evolved, and I’ve learned that having a b2b software investment strategy does not mean only one thing. 

Given that we manage small funds and aim for outsized results, we follow a few core principles. At our core, we focus on capital efficiency; business models with high margins and recurring (or re-occurring) revenue streams; and scalable go-to-market strategies that facilitate high-growth potential (such as one-to-many distributions and high contract values). These attributes inevitably push us toward b2b models over b2c, and software over hardware, but the core principles are more important than the superficial attributes.

When people see “b2b software”, they often think of classic SaaS businesses, such as sales & marketing enablement platforms, and overdone verticalized software plays. But two years in, I’ve seen that even within the constraints of what may sound like a vanilla investment thesis, there is both evolution and flexibility for finding interesting outlier businesses. For example, Laconia’s first fund had no healthcare companies, but in Fund III, about a third of the portfolio will be healthcare-focused. Our pipeline has also evolved beyond well-established categories like fintech to include AI-enabled platforms for uranium discovery, behavioral health models for drug development in neurology and psychiatry, and edge computing on satellites.

Two years ago, I did not think that investing in hyper-spectral satellite imaging for detecting nitrogen levels in wheat crops would be part of my resume, but it turns out that when applying a structured and disciplined process, you are forced to question preconceptions, challenge your thinking, and uncover truly overlooked opportunities. 

What next?

2025 has been an exciting year so far! We celebrated our 10th anniversary with a beautiful blog series and a celebration at the iconic Katz’s Deli. As we gear up for our next chapter, it has been fun to go down memory lane of a decade of seed investing and take stock of all that we have accomplished. I am more than excited to continue to execute on the strategy we have been refining over the past decade and find serious founders building must-have technologies in mission-critical industries. 

For me, some areas of interest include healthcare, workflow vertical AI, and financial infrastructure. If you are a founder, investor, or industry operator focused on those spaces, please reach out to me here!

Mirit Lugassi

All Our VC Friends Are Dead

In 2021, we warned that venture capital was splitting into two distinct worlds (Two Worlds of Venture, Enmeshment in Venture). While many dismissively chalked this up to typical market cycles, we saw a fundamental shift coming: the extinction of focused seed-stage investors. Now, in 2025, that prediction has become painfully obvious: the stage-specialized VCs we started out with are nowhere to be found.

One of the most memorable things about our early investment days was the amount of collaboration that existed with other seed funds. We’d often need to partner up with 3 or 4 other partners to get a $3M round done. Sure, the process could be clunky, but it typically led to very supportive investor groups between seed and Series A. When we revisit the firms we used to work with most frequently, the vast majority are in one of two categories:

  • $100M+ fund sizes, investing minimum checks of $2M+, skewing toward larger checks and rounds

  • No longer investing

Nearly all of our peers – focused, nimble, <$50M funds, materially invested in the success of our underdog portfolio companies – in a sense, are dead.

This market outcome is a symptom of how institutional LPs evaluate and allocate capital. We’ve seen this firsthand. While others chased asset growth, we made the deliberate (and often difficult) choice to stay small and focused. We proved our investment model with just $5M. This proof-of-concept fund allowed us to fine-tune our strategy, focus, value-add, and process, learning how to be an institutional lead investor. We cut our teeth with just 7 portfolio companies (a nailbiter of a portfolio until we hit 1x DPI in year 4), but this measured approach gave us the foundation we needed to be a credible, long-term partner for “day one” founders.

With our next two funds, we raised about $12.5M and $20M, incremental step-ups that allowed us to remain the most aligned partner for both founders and LPs. We focused our portfolio support around the areas that matter most between seed and Series A (sales acceleration, operations, and capital strategy), and we evolved our portfolio construction to consistently capitalize on venture capital’s outsized potential.

Raising our $20M fund between 2020 and 2022 gave us an intimate view of the structural shift in venture. While our core base of industry experts and family offices understood the value proposition of a focused, engaged, upside-oriented strategy, the institutional LP landscape was a different story. All in-person meetings evaporated, and public markets seesawed daily. Even with macro recovery, portfolio resilience, and real returns, we watched large LPs go from freezing deployment to doubling down on existing manager allocations overnight, making it clear that the entry points for new managers, especially small ones, had tightened dramatically.

In tandem with our personal experiences of this dynamic, the data on this bifurcation became increasingly clear, and we realized our experience wasn’t an outlier. Given the venture asset class has exceptionally high dispersion and relies on outliers for outperformance, industry-wide diversification is critical for long-term viability. The opposite trend drives toward stagnation. As we saw the tidal wave of consolidation coming, we tried to fire a warning signal for founders, VCs, and LPs, hoping that this path wasn’t yet irreversible.

Unfortunately, since then, quarter after quarter, industry data has continued to confirm this trend. It’s taken some time, but our warning that market structure is shifting dangerously has now become a consensus view:

While many are talking about the symptoms, few are addressing the root cause: the way institutional LPs evaluate and allocate to venture managers. Consider the bifurcation of “emerging” vs “established” funds. In venture, these concepts are almost universally correlated with fund size. Emerging funds are new and small. It is a foregone conclusion that “established” funds are large. The maturation arc of a successful VC firm is from small/emerging to big/established, in line with large institutions’ incentives of deploying relatively large amounts of capital across a relatively small number of firms and VCs’ incentives of accumulating AUM. As a result, seed investing is treated as a stepping stone rather than a long-term strategy.

LPs tend to fall into two camps: those who believe in persistence of returns and those who bet on emerging managers. Yet there’s scant analysis of what actually drives under- or outperformance beyond mean reversion. The same bad heuristics that skew founder selection (pedigree, proximity, brand) also shape LP allocations: some use “persistence” to justify backing ever-expanding franchises, while others over-index on novelty. What’s missing are tangible, testable frameworks for evaluating the real drivers of returns.

A few thoughtful voices are starting to talk about more than superficial metrics. Sara Zulkosky at Recast Capital recently published an analysis examining what drives returns (albeit still within the “established” vs “emerging” framework). Dan Gray's ongoing data-driven work is pushing our industry to think more rigorously about performance measurement. The team at Verdis has published thoughtful analyses on portfolio construction. Joe Milam and Del Johnson continue to critique industry structure, portfolio construction, and more. Thankfully there is little consensus amidst these voices on what the correct answer is, and all push us toward more rigor.

Over the past decade, our team has pored over the research, analyzed our own mistakes, and questioned what kind of firm we want to be. How do we balance what founders want, what LPs like, and what drives returns? (Maddeningly, these are often 3 different things!) How do we build an enduring venture firm that doesn’t get worse over time?

As our partner Jeffrey and Jenny, Jonathan, and Lak at N47 have recently written, seed investing in particular requires a unique approach. Studying what leads to investment underperformance can provide a framework of mistakes to avoid. We don’t have all the answers, but a decade of investing and research has taught us several critical lessons about what drives seed-stage returns:

  • Entry point matters. It’s easy to hand-wave away valuation and ownership in frothy markets, but in seed investing, discipline is non-negotiable. Especially in times of challenging exit liquidity, built-in optionality significantly supports return potential. More importantly, disciplined fundraising trajectories correlate with stronger ultimate success, suggesting return-oriented investors should avoid the temptation of heat-driven rounds that push founders to scale prematurely. In addition to remaining valuation-sensitive, we’ve also increasingly front-loaded our investment strategy, prioritizing initial ownership over follow-on investments. As James Heath recently published in “Reserves are a Scam”, reserves are exceptionally difficult to allocate effectively in real market conditions, and they hamper upside as they decrease both upfront ownership and diversification. With a focus on disciplined initial investments, we can build much more exciting portfolios.

  • Right-sized checks require right-sized funds. Small, focused funds mathematically have higher outperformance potential; as fund size grows, return potential declines. We’ve kept deliberate, incremental step-ups (from $5M to ~$12.5M to ~$20M) to preserve alignment, maintain seed-stage discipline, and avoid being forced up-market.

  • Optimal specialization requires balance. While LPs often prefer specialized funds for their own portfolio construction, this preference conflicts with GPs’ own return maximization goal. The research on this topic generally skews in favor of generalist fund-level strategies. Further, the most compelling argument in favor of optimizing diversification is a simple logical one: in an outlier-driven industry, with significant unknowable variables, you should avoid any criteria that arbitrarily constrain your investable universe. The sweet spot lies in leveraging deep expertise in select areas while staying open to adjacent opportunities. At Laconia, we have core sector focuses (fintech, retail, healthcare, and proptech), a bias toward capital-efficient business models (b2b vs b2c), and flexibility to pursue other scalable software categories (e.g. a recent agtech investment). This balance, while not terribly flashy, ensures we leverage our deep experience and specialized networks without boxing ourselves out of the next big thing.

  • Portfolio construction has practical limits. Optimal portfolio size in theory is different from optimal portfolio size in reality. In theory, the larger the portfolio size, the better (though with significant diminishing returns). In practice, serious constraints make that suboptimal. For one, strong investor-founder relationships are both objectively and subjectively important, as they are valued by both parties and provide meaningful protection to investors in an otherwise vulnerable position. Furthermore, VCs’ roles as fiduciaries require a level of awareness and supervision, no matter how “founder-friendly” they may be. Under these circumstances, it is hard to square the trade-offs required to build exceptionally large portfolios.

  • Process complements instincts. As much as we might wish decisions could be black and white, seed investing is not entirely reliant on either data or gut feel. Seed requires judgment plus structure. We use consistent evaluation frameworks and technology to reduce noise, improve qualification, and make faster, better decisions, without losing the qualitative, human assessment that early-stage investing demands.

  • Betting on teams doesn’t mean pattern-matching stereotypes. Research has shown that VCs have a tendency to overvalue superficial characteristics, leading to suboptimal decisions. At seed stage, investors have to identify diamonds in the rough. We evaluate founders not based on where they went to school or which investors they already know, but on the expertise they bring, the rigor with which they approach business-building, and the leadership qualities that they demonstrate. Strong networks help with speed and insight, but we don’t mistake brand, proximity, or co-investor lists for edge. We underwrite independently, especially when markets are choppy and social proof is least predictive.

  • Investor competence takes many forms. The industry fetishizes specific pedigrees for investors, whereas performance comes from complementary skills and lived experiences. In building our own team, we intentionally value different paths and avoid over-weighting any single background.

Perhaps our most fundamental lesson learned about seed investing is that it truly doesn’t scale. We know we can’t be the universal seed investor. No firm can. This is why we have always supported others along their investment journey, going so far as to launch a 1,500+ person fellowship program supporting those searching for their own path. But training isn’t enough – we need to change how the industry evaluates and rewards specialized seed investing.

More than ever, founders and investors alike deserve deep focus and true partnership. Our approach is rare, but we know we can’t be alone in our thinking. If you see the opportunity that we see – the evergreen upside of disciplined seed investing, the value of alignment, and the arbitrage of going against the grain of value-destroying industry inertia – we’d love to connect.

Geri Kirilova

Liquidonate Named One of TIME's Best Inventions of 2025

‌LiquiDonate was named one of ‌TIME’s Best Inventions of 2025, a remarkable recognition of their mission to build a truly circular retail economy. By helping brands reroute excess inventory from their overfilled warehouses seamlessly to nonprofits instead of landfills, LiquiDonate is not only saving retailers at least 50% on their reverse logistics costs but redefining what sustainable supply chains can look like at scale.

Read more here!

Bluefish AI Recognized As One of Headline's Top AI-Native Startups in Europe

Bluefish was recognized as one of ‌Headline’s top AI-native startups in Europe.

From day one, Bluefish has been pioneering how enterprise marketers show up in AI platforms, and the momentum is only accelerating. Being named among the AI Europe 100 is a testament to their category-defining work and the world-class team driving it forward.

For the full list, read here.

Propensity Made Inc. Magazine's 5000 List of America's Fastest-Growing Private Companies

Propensity made their debut on Inc. Magazine’s 5000 list of America’s fastest-growing private companies.

This recognition is a testament to the Propensity team’s hard work, dedication, and innovation in building one of the fastest-growing ABM platforms. It also speaks to the incredible support from their customers and partners who have been part of the journey.

We’re proud to back Propensity and celebrate this milestone with them. To review the full list, read here.