A Constructive Critique of Time Dislocation Theory in Venture Capital

In Scott Hartley's analysis of venture capital, he advances a narrative that has been spun consistently among fund managers who have raised new fund vintages before 2022: venture capital's current struggles represent merely a cyclical "time dislocation" - a temporary misalignment between today's capital deployment and tomorrow's returns. This framework suggests patience and market timing will ultimately restore the industry's equilibrium; therefore, now is the time to ‘buy’ into the liquidity discount.

While I'm a fan of Hartley's venture firm (he's keeping his fund vintages small) and applaud his call for VCs to deploy capital now, the mounting evidence points to a far more fundamental transformation.

Rather than experiencing a predictable trough in a familiar cycle, we may be witnessing what paleontologists might recognize: a mass extinction event triggered by changes in the fundamental conditions that sustained an entire species.

The traditional venture capital model, which provided vital risk capital to emerging technologies for half a century, faces not a winter but potentially an ice age - one driven by structural failures in its core mechanisms. This isn't about timing markets; it's about the collapse of an ecosystem.

The implications could stretch far beyond fund returns or exit multiples. At stake is nothing less than America's capacity to fund and develop the transformative technologies that will define the next wave of innovation. To understand why this extinction event was inevitable - and what might emerge from it - we must first examine the evidence that points to structural rather than cyclical change.

The Lost Equilibrium: Venture Capital’s Goldilocks Era

For half a century, venture capital was the primary engine for bringing transformative technologies to market. The model emerged in a specific context that perfectly aligned capital needs, market structures, and investment returns in a Shulman-like fashion. Understanding this historical alignment - and why it no longer exists - is crucial to recognizing today's crisis's structural rather than cyclical nature.

The traditional venture capital model took shape in an era of distinct characteristics. Fund sizes were small, typically under $50 million, matching the capital needs of early-stage technology companies. This alignment meant successful exits, even at modest valuations, which could generate meaningful returns for the entire fund. The public markets provided reliable liquidity through IPOs, with companies typically going public once they reached $50-100 million in revenue. Most importantly, the economics of fund management remained subordinate to investment returns.

The symbiosis between venture funds and technology startups worked because each part of the ecosystem fulfilled its role naturally. Venture capitalists provided not just capital but crucial guidance and connections, often having been successful entrepreneurs themselves. The limited fund sizes meant partners could maintain deep engagement with a small number of portfolio companies. Fund economics incentivized genuine value creation rather than fee generation. Several key factors enabled this golden age of venture capital.

Market Structure

The public markets welcomed growth companies at relatively early stages, providing natural liquidity for venture investments. As Partnoy documented in The Atlantic, the 1990s saw hundreds of IPOs annually, with companies going public at much earlier stages than today. This robust exit environment meant venture funds could reliably return capital to investors within their 7-10 year fund lifycles.

Capital Efficiency

Early-stage technology companies, particularly in software and semiconductors, required relatively modest capital to reach significant scale. The capital requirements aligned naturally with fund sizes, creating a healthy ecosystem where single successful investments could return an entire fund. This efficiency meant funds could take genuine risks on unproven technologies while maintaining portfolio diversification.

Aligned Incentives

The economics of venture funds naturally aligned the interests of general partners, limited partners, and founders. As documented in Wasserman's research, while founder transitions were common, they typically occurred when companies had reached natural inflection points rather than being forced by fund dynamics. The focus remained on building sustainable businesses rather than manufacturing exits.

Global Competition

America enjoyed relatively unchallenged leadership in technology innovation. While Japan and Europe had strong industrial bases, the unique combination of research universities, government funding (particularly through DARPA), and risk capital gave the U.S. a decisive advantage in commercializing new technologies. This meant venture capitalists could focus on technology risk rather than market access or geopolitical considerations.

Regulatory Environment

The regulatory framework, particularly post-WWII, supported the venture capital ecosystem. The Investment Company Act of 1940 provided crucial exemptions for venture capital firms, while later reforms like the 1958 Small Business Investment Act actively encouraged risk capital formation. Capital gains tax treatment and pension fund reforms in the 1970s further strengthened the model.

This alignment of factors created what we might call venture capital's "Goldilocks era" - conditions were just right for the model to thrive. However, each of these enabling conditions has fundamentally changed.

IPO Evaporation

The public markets have transformed dramatically. As detailed in Ruchir Sharma's 2020 Wall Street Journal analysis, companies now stay private far longer, with 64% of well-funded startups choosing to delay or avoid public offerings entirely. This fundamental shift in exit paths breaks the traditional venture model's return mechanics.

Ballooning Capital Requirements

Modern technology companies, particularly those building critical infrastructure or deep tech, require far more capital to reach scale. The modest fund sizes that worked in venture capital's golden age cannot support today's capital-intensive innovation. This mismatch has driven the endless scaling of fund sizes, creating fundamentally different economics and incentives.

China's Rise

America's innovation advantage faces unprecedented challenges. China's $2.3 trillion infrastructure commitment dwarfs similar U.S. investments. At the same time, Europe is leading in the area of sustainable technology. The venture capital model must now account for global competition in ways that weren't relevant in its formative years.

Regulatory Headaches

The regulatory environment has become far more complex, particularly for companies building critical infrastructure or working with sensitive technologies. The simple growth metrics that once guided venture investment must now account for regulatory risk, national security considerations, and complex compliance requirements.

Inverted Economics

Most critically, the economics of venture capital have fundamentally inverted. In many cases, what began as a mechanism for funding innovation has become primarily a fee-generating asset management business. When major firms generate more revenue from management fees than from successful exits, the model has shifted from its original purpose.

These changes aren't temporary cycles but structural transformations in the conditions that made traditional venture capital viable. Just as the dinosaurs couldn't survive fundamental changes in their ecosystem, the traditional venture capital model cannot survive this new environment without radical adaptation. The question isn't when conditions will return to "normal" - it's what new forms of innovation funding will emerge to replace an model that no longer fits its environment.

The Data Speaks: Measuring Venture Capital's Systemic Failure

We must examine the empirical evidence to understand why traditional venture capital faces extinction rather than mere cyclical decline. The data suggests fundamental breaks in every key mechanism that historically made the venture capital model viable. These aren't temporary disruptions but compound fractures in the industry's core structure.

The most visible evidence of systemic failure appears in the public markets. Partnoy's research documents a stark reality: the number of publicly traded companies has plunged from nearly 6,000 in the mid-1990s to approximately 3,600 today. This isn't a temporary contraction - it represents a fundamental shift in how companies access capital and create liquidity. More tellingly, IPO activity has cratered from 700 offerings in 1996 to around 100 annually by 2017. Even this dramatic decline understates the problem, as many recent IPOs have been driven by financial engineering (SPACs) rather than genuine company maturation. The traditional pathway that allowed venture capital to return capital to investors has essentially disappeared.

Sharma's Wall Street Journal analysis reveals an even more troubling trend in private markets: since 2000, 64% of startups that raised at least $150 million have remained private, compared to only 17% before 1997. This shift creates a compound problem where venture capital funds cannot return capital to investors within traditional fund lifecycles. Companies require ever-larger private capital injections to sustain growth, while later-stage investors gain negotiating leverage over early risk-takers. The cost of staying private accumulates, reducing ultimate returns for all stakeholders.

Perhaps the most damning evidence comes from the economics of venture firms themselves. Recent revelations that significant firms like Andreessen Horowitz generate over $500 million annually in management fees expose a fundamental misalignment. When fee generation dominates investment returns, the industry has abandoned its core purpose. Fund sizes have grown over 10x from historical norms, forcing partners to split their attention across ever-more portfolio companies while focusing increasingly on fundraising rather than company building.

The human capital data provides another crucial indicator of systemic failure. Wasserman's Harvard Business Review research shows that 50% of founders are removed as CEO within three years, and fewer than 25% lead their companies to IPO. Early investors frequently lose pro-rata rights as founder-investor alignment breaks down systematically. Yet paradoxically, Zook's research demonstrates that founder-led companies significantly outperform on the S&P 500. This contradiction suggests deep structural problems in how venture capital manages human capital.

Contemporary venture capital advantages face unprecedented global challenges, quantifiable through investment flows. China's $2.3 trillion infrastructure commitment and Europe's leadership in sustainability technology signal a declining U.S. share of global venture investment. The loss of first-mover advantage in critical technologies suggests a fundamental shift in global innovation dynamics. The most definitive evidence of structural failure appears in the basic mathematics of venture returns. Larger funds require increasingly impossible exits, while fewer companies can achieve the necessary scale. Portfolio construction becomes mathematically impossible as return profiles flatten despite increased risk. The time to exit has more than doubled, causing carry value to accumulate without realization, while interim financing rounds create preference stacks that maximize dilution for early-risk capital.

The venture capital model requires several fundamental conditions: regular exits within fund lifecycles, sufficient unicorn creation rates, manageable capital requirements, and aligned investor-founder incentives. Current data shows every condition failing simultaneously. Exit rates have fallen below replacement level, while unicorn creation cannot sustain the model. Capital requirements now exceed fund capacity, and interests have become systematically misaligned.

As paleontologists can identify mass extinctions through multiple simultaneous breaks in the fossil record, we can see the venture capital model fails across every crucial dimension. This comprehensive failure of every key metric suggests not a cyclical downturn but a true extinction event.

The data presents an inescapable conclusion: the traditional venture capital model cannot survive in its current form. The question isn't when markets will recover but what new forms of innovation funding will emerge to replace a broken model. Understanding this data is crucial for anyone seeking to fund or build the next generation of transformative technologies.

Creative Destruction: The Rise of New Innovation Capital Models

New forms of innovation funding are emerging from the ashes of traditional venture capital. These models don't simply attempt to patch the broken mechanics of VC - they fundamentally reimagine how we support and scale transformative technologies. The evidence suggests these new approaches may be better suited to funding the next wave of innovation.

The venture studio model offers the most compelling evidence of evolution in action. Research by Suazo (2023) demonstrates dramatically superior performance metrics compared to traditional VC-backed companies. Studio-built companies reach seed rounds twice as quickly as conventional startups and progress through Series A, B, and C rounds 41-47% faster. Most tellingly, they achieve successful exits - through acquisition (33% faster) or IPO (31% sooner) - at accelerated rates while maintaining better alignment between founders and investors.

These performance differentials stem from structural advantages rather than market timing. Venture studios embed experienced operators directly into portfolio companies, reducing execution risk while accelerating development timelines. This approach is particularly crucial for complex infrastructure and deep technology projects requiring sophisticated operational expertise. Rather than practicing the "spray and pray" approach of traditional VC, studios provide comprehensive support services, including R&D, product development, and strategic planning.

Perhaps most importantly, new financing instruments are emerging that better align the interests of all stakeholders. These tools move beyond the binary equity structures that force artificial timing pressures and misalign incentives. By creating more nuanced ways to share risk and reward, these instruments allow for patient capital deployment while providing earlier returns to investors. This evolution directly addresses the time dislocation problem Hartley identifies but through structural innovation rather than market timing.

The new models share several crucial characteristics that distinguish them from traditional VC.

First, they emphasize operational expertise over financial engineering. Rather than viewing startups primarily as financial instruments, these approaches recognize that building transformative companies requires deep domain knowledge and hands-on support. This shift from passive to active value creation better serves the needs of complex technology development.

Second, they create natural alignment between investors and founders through shared operational involvement. This addresses the principal-agent problems that plague traditional VC relationships, where misaligned incentives often lead to premature exits or other suboptimal outcomes. When investors are actively involved in building rather than just monitoring, interests naturally align toward long-term value creation.

Third, they generate revenue through services rather than management fees. This crucial shift means these new models can be economically sustainable while supporting longer development timelines. Rather than forcing artificial exits to raise new funds, they create value through the process of company building itself.

Most significantly, these new models create predictable returns without requiring unicorn exits. By focusing on fundamental value creation rather than valuation arbitrage, they demonstrate that innovation funding can be profitable and sustainable without relying on increasingly impossible power-law outcomes.

The emergence of these new models suggests we're witnessing evolution in action. Just as mass extinction events in natural history created opportunities for new species to emerge, the breakdown of traditional VC is making space for more adapted approaches to innovation funding. These new models aren't simply iterations on venture capital - they represent a fundamental rethinking of how we support technological development.

This evolutionary process aligns with historical patterns of creative destruction in financial markets. Just as investment banking evolved beyond the partnership model and hedge funds developed beyond long-only investing, innovation capital is evolving beyond traditional venture capital. The new models emerging today may seem radical, but they're better adapted to the realities of modern technology development.

The data suggests these new approaches aren't merely theoretical alternatives - they're demonstrating superior results in practice. As traditional VC firms struggle with increasingly impossible math, these new models quietly prove that different approaches to innovation funding are possible and potentially more effective.

The Path Forward: From Extinction to Evolution

The extinction of traditional venture capital creates challenges and profound opportunities for reimagining innovation funding. Just as the Cretaceous extinction enabled the rise of mammals, the breakdown of conventional VC opens space for funding models better adapted to modern innovation needs. The path forward requires both understanding what's possible and accepting what's necessary.

Several crucial principles emerge for the next generation of innovation funding.

First, successful models must support long-term infrastructure development without forcing artificial timelines. The next wave of innovation - from autonomous systems to sustainable energy - requires patient capital aligned with technological rather than fund cycles. China's $2.3 trillion infrastructure commitment demonstrates the scale required; America's response cannot be constrained by traditional VC fund structures.

Second, new approaches must maintain a natural alignment between founders and investors throughout the company-building journey. The data is unequivocal: Zook's research shows founder-led companies significantly outperform, yet Wasserman documents how traditional VC systematically removes founders. This fundamental misalignment must be resolved through new structures that preserve founder involvement while providing investor returns.

Third, innovation funding must generate predictable returns without requiring increasingly impossible unicorn exits. The mathematics of traditional VC has become unsustainable - funds cannot grow larger while exits grow scarcer. New models demonstrate how operational revenue and aligned incentives can create profitable innovation funding without relying on power-law outcomes. Most importantly, the focus must shift from financial engineering to company building. The venture studio model's superior performance metrics demonstrate the value of embedded operational expertise. Future innovation funding will be led by builders rather than bankers, with economic models aligned accordingly.

The extinction event we're witnessing in traditional venture capital doesn't spell the end of innovation funding - quite the opposite. It creates space for approaches better suited to developing transformative technologies. The data suggests these new models aren't just theoretical alternatives but already demonstrate superior results in practice.

Consider the historical parallel: When investment banking evolved beyond the partnership model, many predicted the death of sophisticated financial services. Instead, the industry transformed into something more robust and capable. Similarly, as traditional VC faces extinction, we're seeing the emergence of more advanced approaches to innovation funding.

The critical question isn't whether traditional venture capital will survive - the evidence suggests it cannot, at least not in its current form. The real question is how quickly new models will scale to meet the massive innovation funding needs ahead. The next wave of technology development - from AI infrastructure to sustainable energy systems - requires funding approaches built for their unique challenges.

Those waiting for venture capital to return to "normal" misunderstand the fundamental nature of the change occurring. This likely isn't a cyclical downturn to be waited out for but an evolutionary event that is creating space for new species of innovation funding. The future belongs to those who recognize this reality and adapt accordingly.

The good news is that better models are already emerging. Venture studios demonstrate superior operational outcomes. New financing instruments create better alignment. Revenue-generating innovation funding proves more sustainable than fee-based models. These approaches aren't just patches on the broken venture capital model - they represent the next stage in the evolution of innovation funding. Those who recognize this transformation early will help shape the future of technology development. The path forward isn't about preserving venture capital - it's about evolving beyond it to serve the next wave of innovation better.

---

References & Further Reading

Partnoy, F. (2018, November). The Death of the IPO. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private-inequity/570808/

Sharma, R. (2020, July 24). The Rescues Ruining Capitalism. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-11595603720

Shulman, D. (1992, March). The Goldilocks Economy: Keeping the Bears at Bay. Salomon Brothers Inc.

Suazo, R. (2023). Why Venture Studio Startups Have Higher Long-Term Success Rates. Bundl.com.

Wasserman, N. (2018). The Founder's Dilemma: Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. Harvard Business Review.

Zook, C. (2014). Founder-Led Companies Outperform the Rest - Here's Why. Harvard Business Review.

---

If you enjoyed this analysis, please consider supporting my work by upgrading to Venture Capital 2.0 Premium, where you’ll find detailed financial and portfolio strategies and private research on select startup portfolio companies.

I am grateful for your support.