Web3 Venture Capitalists Struggle to Stand Out

The typical pitch from a Web3 VC firm sounds all too familiar. Claims of having extensive relationships and a robust network have become meaningless, as every fund makes the same assertions. This has led to a situation where liquidity providers have become desensitized to such pitches, rendering them ineffective. The industry continues to rely on the same formula: an impressive logo, a vague investment thesis, and a few bullet points highlighting the fund's supposed value-add. However, this approach is no longer sufficient, especially for emerging managers who lack a track record. My colleagues and I at TBV realized that we needed to differentiate ourselves from the competition. We asked ourselves what set us apart, and the answer was humbling: not much. So, we decided to build something unique. Research has consistently shown that emerging managers tend to outperform established funds, delivering higher returns on average. The challenge lies in communicating a clear reason for clients to invest in them. When we founded TBV, we decided to focus on creating a product rather than just making promises. We asked ourselves what a fund can actually own, beyond just its connections. We wanted to develop a people-centric deal engine, leveraging the power of events to create a defensible platform. Web3 conferences have become a crucial part of the ecosystem, with founders and VCs alike attending these events to network and find new opportunities. We wanted to flip the traditional model on its head by building our own environment, owning the data, and creating relationships at scale. Our event series, which drew over 43,000 attendees and more than 100 partners in 2025, was a deliberate attempt to create infrastructure that would feed into our AI-driven deal engine, TBX. This approach has allowed us to create a flywheel effect, where our events and fund are deeply intertwined. Other VC firms, such as Outlier Ventures and Paradigm, have taken different approaches to differentiation. Outlier has focused on building a genuine platform of support for early-stage founders, resulting in a fund with over 300 portfolio companies. Paradigm, on the other hand, has taken a technical approach, contributing to protocols and creating a level of depth that is hard to replicate. What these models share is that the fund itself is a product with utility beyond capital. The question is no longer how to tell a better story but how to build something that makes the story self-evident. The good news is that there isn't just one answer, and the next generation of interesting managers will likely share this focus on building real infrastructure. Those who fail to adapt will find it increasingly difficult to compete, as LPs become more discerning and less willing to invest in funds that rely solely on unproven relationships and unmeasurable value.