Its time for Trustless Platforms

ICO party is over and sanity is back. Crypto enthusiasts have started asking about the adoption and possible adoption. So how will real adoption come?

Here is my hypothesis:

1. The blockchain infrastructure is almost ready to handle expected loads and security. There are numerous options ( Ethereum, Ontology, Hyperledger, etc.) with varied features for founders to build upon.

2. The reason why someone would want to build using blockchain is to leverage on its trustless nature where "True Peer to Peer" transactions will take place without an intermediary (brokers, institutions or platforms). In other words, Mathematics will possibly disrupt the FANGs and alikes. Google Ads get replaced when content publishers can connect directly with audiences and have a mechanism to reward them. Uber gets replaced when drivers, car owners and riders can connect automatically. Insurance companies gets replaced when people create mutuals and insure themselves.

3. Some of the junior platforms with existing users could potentially do a reverse ICO and try to disrupt themselves and possible the larger incumbents. For example - Spuul has created a platform called Spokkz. If Spokkz succeeds in creating a content generation and consumption economy which is fueled by their tokens, they could possibly go against the likes of Youtube and Netflix of the world.

Still very early days for the blockchain ecosystems and lot of maturity has to come. But I think the Trustless Decentralised Networks have a fair chance to disrupt the Disruptors of last decade.

Building a Tech Portfolio

Technology is reshaping every industry and its dynamism and impressive growth rates make it a must-consider sector for virtually every investor. But how to build a portfolio of assets in this ultra dynamic asset class. Here are some pointers:

1. Follow adoption, not hype

Believe what you see not what you hear. 44% of humanity now has a Smartphone and you can see it. And people spend between 5 to 12 hours per day on that device. Mobility is a trend which already is redefining things that we can do using that device. One could have easily invested in Apple after seeing early adoption of i-Phones and still made a killing.

But beware of buzzwords. Every year people come up with new buzzwords that seem like the next big thing. They are usually technologies looking for a problem to solve. Block-chain, 3D printing, Internet of Things, etc. People claimed that 3D printing will disrupt the entire manufacturing industry in China and bring the manufacturing back to the "First World". Unfortunately, I only saw people printing neon coloured figurines for testing. It is still too expensive to go mainstream. Maybe some technology breakthrough will make it cheaper and then it can get adoption in mainstream.  Until then, stay away. Another very latest addition to this hype is ICOs ( initial coin offerings). People are selling shares in their companies against Bitcoins. As interesting as it sounds, it is no different from crowdfunding. Equity crowdfundings so far have failed miserably. It is almost impossible for "crowd" to understand early stage companies. Even VCs with significant minority get class rights to protect themselves. How will these minority shareholders protect themselves without any regulation in place.

2. Stay super agile:

Technology has a rapid cycle of obsolescence means that winners and losers in technology do not necessarily maintain those positions for long. Winners can quickly become losers and declared losers can make pundits look like idiots.

Groupon launched in 2008 and went for an IPO in 2011 at a valuation of $12.7 B at a per share price of $20. By the end of 2012, its stock traded less than $5.  Facebook launched its IPO in Feb 2012 at $38 per share. However, its share price quickly dropped to $17.55 per share in Sept 2012. This seemingly loser is now priced at $172.45.

Agility of tech companies can turn around the futures pretty quickly. Microsoft was founded in 1975 and more than a few tech writers have already penned its obituary as a leader in the field. But appointment of Satya Nadela catalysed the stock into a new territory. Apple was left for dead in the 1990s due to the dominance of the WinTel duopoly, but sprang back to vigor with its innovative smartphone products.

3. Knowing which Metrics to chase

Technology companies that are doing well will never be cheap according to the analysts who track traditional mature companies. The way to analyse technology companies is to know the metrices that really matter.

When looking for platforms, the metrics should be its leadership position. Winner takes All. Google controls 80% of search market globally as against Bing which claims about 10%. When looking for SaaS companies, the most important metrics are growth and churn rates. Similarly, for a lending platform it should be growth and default rates.


Pro Tip: Bet on yourself. Yes, if you use a product or service and absolutely love it. Just invest. You will not regret. 

Marginal Burn versus Opportunity Loss - Founder's Dilemma?

Founders of growth stage companies face plenty of dilemmas while deciding on allocating precious resources. Particularly while hiring their senior management team. Often, to save money, they end up hiring smart people who may not have the relevant experience but are willing to experiment and learn. At a stage when the company is trying to take off, this can be an expensive experiment.

I recently attended a Board meeting at one of our fast growing portfolio company. New sign up rate was at all time high but so was churn. A deeper dive into causes of churn revealed that it was mostly during onboarding phase. Once onboarded properly, with a human touch, customers stayed for long. It quickly became apparent that we needed to hire more people in support for new customers. The fact that this discussion happened at the Board level worried me because CEO himself was trying to solve the problem. His deputy who was responsible for customer success was in that role for 6 months and yet the fast growing company was experimenting with support. I questioned the experience and skill set of the customer success manager and was explained by the CEO that such experience is not available locally and would be expensive to hire someone with relevant experience.

Founder was obviously concerned about the marginal burn that the company would incur if someone with relevant experience was hunted and hired. But the founder had quietly accepted the opportunity loss that the company would have to bear because that was not clearly visible. Company's monthly burn was S$150K and hiring someone relevant would have costed additional S$10-15K.

This was not the first time. Last year, one of the startup was looking to hire a COO to share the burden with Founder and during the search process, I saw the Founder to be very cautious with COO salary range. They were lucky to get smart people at the price but not many of them had relevant experience. The new hires had to test and learn from scratch and eventually costed the company more.

Dilemma of marginal burn can also be seen while deciding on marginal marketing spend. Founder of another startup was not prepared to experiment with increasing the marketing burn. Their marketing budget was about 10% of their monthly burn of S$80-90K.  And, they would not experiment burning another S$20-30K in additional marketing/PR.

I understand that it all adds up when you increase marginal spend in all areas simultaneously. But a decision has to be taken considering - "Marginal burn is visible but Opportunity Loss is not."

Are you going with the safer option? Be mindful of the opportunity loss.

How to structure a FUNCTIONAL Board ?

Do you feel excited about the upcoming board meeting? Do you feel that the hours spent with your Board members are worth more than the money they invested? Do you ever wish that if it was possible to hire those Board members as part of your team? Or

Are you one of those founders who think Board meetings are a complete waste of time? Do you wish that the frequency of Board meetings should be changed from monthly to quarterly? 

Clearly, if the Boards are not functional and productive, it can have deep impact on the future of Startups. There is an old Silicon Valley saying that “Good boards don’t create good companies, but a bad board will kill a company every time.”

How to structure an awesome, effective and productive Board?

1. Right People - Choose your bosses wisely

As the CEO, you report to the Board. They assess your performance and decide on key matters of your company. Would you let investors appoint anyone as your boss? You need to "know" the investor representatives who would be appointed on your board even before you sign the term sheet. Spend time with them and if the investor director nominee is not as excited as you about your business, look for replacement. You should also consider diversity of skill sets on the Board. Checking references is also very important. First impressions can deceive. 

2. Size of the Board - Small is beautiful

One of the Board meeting that I attended last month had seven people in the room excluding key management of the Company. Harder to have deeper and meaningful discussions in a larger setting. 

Monthly Board meetings are a time when you get out of your day to day execution mode, take deep breaths and think strategically using directors as your sounding board. The smaller the group, the better the discussion quality. 

Ideal size of the Board at seed stage is three and Series A is five (including founders).

3. Board observers - Try to minimise

Lets be practical, in a meeting, observers don't just observe. They pretty much act as a Board member. They have views, ideas, questions, etc. and it is rude to tell someone that they are there just to observe. Founders should try to minimise the number of observer rights they assign to every investor in the syndicate. 

It does not mean information can not be shared. Board materials, discussion minutes, etc can be shared with everyone who holds a reasonable stake and confidentiality is assured.

4. Chemistry between members - critical

Culture at the Board level is critical. The chemistry and respect among board members for each other defines the overall quality of the meeting and outcomes. This does not mean that all the members have to agree to everything that has been shown or said. Diversity of views should be encouraged. Open and frank conversations are key. Founders have to play a key part in building this culture even at the board level.

One loose canon on the Board can destroy the entire team spirit and that affects functioning of the Board. Founders need to know how to handle critical observations and encourage data backed debates. Stay away from the five types of dysfunctional board members as defined by Jack and Suzy Welch: The Do-Nothing; The White Flag (will do anything to avoid confrontation); The Cabalist (driven by personal agenda); The Meddler (dwells incessantly on details); and The Pontificator (only enjoys hearing himself speak).

5. Advisers are not Directors - understand the difference

Investor Directors are shareholder representatives. They are mostly generalists and rarely specialists. 

If you need specialised advice on something on an ongoing basis, you need to assemble a separate Board of Advisers. However, it is not necessary to have advisers appointed to the Board. 

6. Independent Directors - worth having one

Independent Directors are great to bring balance to a Board. In cases, where there are deadlocks between Founders and Investors at a Board level, an experienced third party can help. 

Very few startups like to get Independent directors involved and most ID seats are generally unfilled. 

7. Frequency of meeting - communication is important

Better Boards meet monthly and communicates more frequently than that. Startups operate in a very dynamic environment where traditional quarterly meetings are useless. 

Besides meeting in person on a monthly basis, real time communication and decision making on key issues is important to build trust and transparency. 

8. Split Board meetings into two sessions and involve key management

In a healthy board-CEO relationship, the board and CEO need quality time together where they can have private discussions.  A customary approach that works well is to divide board meetings into 2 sessions:  First there is an open session, where senior management team members may be invited and they may even be responsible for parts of the agenda. Then there is a private session where everyone except for directors is excused and the agenda shifts to the private Board-CEO discussion and governance matters. 

Alert: Venture Capital Tsunami in South Asia

Last 12 months have been nothing short of a Tsunami for Venture Capital industry in South Asia ( India + ASEAN). Unprecedented capital inflows and interest have completely shaken the local ecosystems. 

Strategic investors such as Softbank, Rakuten, Alibaba, Naspers, etc. are throwing money as if there is no tomorrow. Sovereign Wealth Funds such as GIC, Temasek, QIA and Khazanah want their share of the pie. Even Private Equity firms do not want to be left behind. 

Lets look at some mind numbing data first to feel the intensity of this tsunami:

• Flipkart raised 3 massive rounds from Series F ($210M), G ($1B), H ($700M) in a 7 month span between May and Dec 2014.
• Ola raised Series C ($41.5M), D ($210M) and E ($400M) in 10 months between Jul 2014 to Apr 2015.
• Snapdeal raised more than $727M between May and Oct 2014.
• Grabtaxi raised 4 rounds of funding from Series A, B ($15M), C ($65M) & D ($250M) in a 9 month period between Apr and Dec 2014.
• Tokopedia raised $100M in Oct 2014.
• Housing.com raised $18M, $19M and $100M between Apr and Nov 2014.
• PayTM parent One97 raised $635M from Alibaba and SAIF partners in Jan 2015.

Remember Webvan?? Webvan raised Series A ($125M ) and Series B ($275M) from Softbank and Sequoia within a short span between 1998 and 1999. Looks like the same story is being replayed here in South Asia all over again.

I can never comprehend how a startup moves from Series A to Series D in 9 months. Such sudden influx obviously causes ripple effects. Early stage valuations are going through the roof. Series A rounds look like erstwhile Series C rounds. The race is now on to  reach a billion dollar valuation in the shortest amount of time. Hate to say this but to a certain extent these funding rounds now decide who is going to be the winner. Taxiforsure lost its battle against Ola not because their product or team were not great. But because, they did not raise such quantums at the right time. 

Until recently, we never had to worry about a Startup raising too much money. Risk capital was scarce and hence, the default advice was never to worry about dilution, valuation, etc and to raise as much as they can. More money allows for mistakes thereby empowering founders to experiment. A huge funding round also keeps competition at bay. 

However, it is time to be cautious. 

1. Impatient capital will have unrealistic expectations. They would want to achieve leadership position by throwing money to solve the problem. However, if fast growth is achieved only due to capital by providing unsustainable discounting and similar loss leading tactics, then there will be a continuous need for capital. Any reversal in investor sentiment can cause failure.

2. Too much money too soon is fundamentally bad for startups. It forces aggressive execution even for startups who are still discovering their most optimal business models. They just get pressured to enter the rat race. 

3. Growth is not always directly proportional to the money you burn.  

I am not advising against raising big rounds of capital. I am cautioning against over capitalisation. Know how much you need and when ( and also from whom... if you get the choice).

Venture Debt : Good, bad or ugly?

DBS has just launched Venture debt for tech startups in Singapore. I think this is a first by any Asian Bank and a new product for SE Asia. Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) has been active in India and China but they don't have any presence in SE Asia. Here is the link to DBS' announcement - http://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_launches_venture_debt_for_tech_start-ups_in_Singapore

Startup community in Singapore has welcomed the move and rightfully so, this opens up options for many startups. However, before jumping on the bandwagon, startups and VCs need to clearly understand its pros and cons. 

The Good : Venture debt

• Extends the "cash flow runway" for the company and makes it easier to achieve the next valuation milestone
• Venture lending represents a less dilutive type of financing than venture capital financing since venture lenders generally require less of an ownership position
• Venture lenders typically take less of an advisory role in its portfolio companies and do not serve on the corporate board of directors

According to SVB website, the best time to raise venture debt is in conjunction with or immediately after raising a round of equity, i.e. when there is the most capital in the company.  It can be done at other times, but often with less favorable terms. Venture lending is appropriate at the following times:

• As part of a funding round where, for example, rather than raise $10 million in a funding round, a company can raise $7.5 million in equity and $2.5 million via venture debt
• To extend cash runway when a company knows that it will need to raise another funding round in 12 months, but would like to extend that timeframe to 18-24 months
• As the last round before an exit instead of, or in addition to, an internal round where taking venture debt will help the investors/promoters receive roughly the same amount with less investment on their part if a venture loan is taken to top up growth capital
• As working capital in a situation where even though a company has sufficient operating cash, it needs cash for working capital and can extend its resources via a debt facility
• To finance purchase of equipment or finance office expansions and buildouts, for which equity would be a more expensive alternative

For startups in Singapore, DBS bank has put in these following criteria:

• Must be strongly backed by DBS’ partner venture capitalists. 
• Should have raised at least SGD 1 million of Series A funding
• Be incorporated for at least two years, be in operation for at least one year and have demonstrated that their business model is commercially viable.

In simple words, that means DBS is prepared to come in as early as immediately after Series A round.  They are basically relying on the ability of their partner VCs to assess the startups that are commercially viable. Startups that have the confidence to reach inflection points can make good use of this Venture debt. Leverage can amplify the returns for all shareholders.

So what is NOT so good about this Venture debt?

1. Accepting Venture debt too early

Accepting venture debt too early in the life of a Startup is risky. Leverage is a double edged sword. It good times it can improve returns for all but in bad times it can cause more harm. In case the Startup fails to reach its inflection point, it might become nearly impossible for the debt loaded Startup to raise follow on funding from other investors or pivot. It is best when debt is used to fund organic and inorganic growth at later stages. 
  

2. Covenants and other default clauses

It is also important to learn how DBS writes its loan covenants. In case, the business growth is not as expected, the bank might recall its cash when the startup needs it the most. It is hard for banks to behave like VCs. “Material adverse change” and other “subjective default clauses” can allow a lender to recall their loan due to events beyond the company’s control (e.g., an existing equity investor deciding not to participate in a future round).

3. Using venture debt financing as a last resort

Venture debt doesn't suit a company which is unable to raise follow on equity financing and expected to run low on cash. This would over burden a non performer and eventually make it harder to turn around. 

To conclude: We would have to wait and see the details of terms and conditions DBS is going to propose. Assuming that they are at par with SVB, venture debt is a strong option for venture-backed companies who want to add capital and minimize dilution. Though more expensive than traditional working capital lines, venture debt offers far greater flexibility. However, excessive debt or loans with heavy restrictions can be detrimental to a business, and the terms of any potential financing should be considered carefully.

Can Singapore produce Billion dollar tech startups?

Singapore's tech ecosystem has remarkably improved from what it was five years back. From an occasional early double digit million exits, we have now seen many companies hitting the Centurion (100 million) mark. But has it improved enough to produce Unicorns ( 1 billion) ? Does the ecosystem have capabilities to produce the next billion dollar tech startup?

Lets do a deep dive and assess the elements that are necessary for that to happen.

1. Quantity : Number of startup formation had reached healthy levels in 2012-2013. In 2009, we used to receive two pitches per WEEK. Contrast that with 2013-14 average of two pitches per DAY.
We all know that this did not happen organically. Government has done a lot to prime the pump. In my mind, the biggest contributor to this ecosystem was the TIS scheme launched by National Research Foundation (NRF). This was not a perfect scheme. But it gave Singapore the right to call itself the regional hub for tech companies. It attracted talent from all over South East Asia. Sadly, NRF has shifted its focus from what they consider "Low tech" to "High tech". I personally don't think that iJAM reload can completely fill the gap. But that is making iJAM program really competitive. I was on an i-JAM panel recently and to my surprise the quality of startups was at par with some of the TIS companies. IDA is getting active by approving a number of new incubators to seed many more as well. However, Spring Singapore seems to have taken a back seat. Time will tell if the ecosystem can adapt to these governmental decisions but the activity levels as of now are healthy.

2. Quality:  Over time the quality has become better as well. The teams are well rounded and have more experienced founders. But do we have the quality of producing Unicorns? I personally don't think that we are short of skills here. We have lot of founders who are great starters who can take the companies to Series A. We also have talented experienced hires available in regional head quarters of various tech companies who can scale the potential winners. However, we need smart capital that can make this transition successful. I personally know that some very smart people are raising Series A funds and are in various stages of closing those funds. The challenge for all these funds would be to come in early (earlier than a typical Series A) and fill the void created by NRF. Will they? I don't know. May be that will force the founders to be more creative on how they syndicate and/or Bootstrap.

3. Support systems:  We now have a reasonably healthy mix of incubators, co-working spaces, growth funds and corporate participants. However, we are short on two things: good seed stage funds (accelerators) and regulation.
Seed stage shortage can not be addressed by Angels. We desperately need smart seed stage investors who practice emergent strategy and can help transform ideas into scalable businesses. This will build the pipeline for Series A funds about to be raised. This is the single biggest problem with our ecosystem. Series A gap is being filled at the expense of Seed Stage capital. Most active seed investors are now becoming Series A investors. In absence of good acceleration funds, they all might have to retune their expectations.
Regulators are also not in sync with what is expected from the "easiest place to do business". I have had some experience dealing with Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). And they are no where near UK Financial Conducts Authority (FCA). If we want to play to our strengths, we can't ignore Fintech. And, we can't focus on Fintech without a proactive MAS. Hope someone is listening.

To conclude, IMHO, Singapore can produce billion dollar startups provided it plays to its strengths. Enterprise Software and Fintech are two areas that we can easily build without going anywhere. And, regional consumer startups are also a huge opportunity if we move out of our comfort zones and explore Southeast Asia.

What do you think? Constructive criticism is very welcome.. 

Alibaba's investment in Singpost and its implications for Startups and SMEs

Alibaba recently took a significant minority stake in Singpost for S$ 312.5 million ( US$ 249m). This was announced right after its US$ 206 million investment in Shoprunner Inc. and participation in US$ 250 million Series D in Lyft. These transactions made it amply clear that Alibaba wants to complete the loop by inorganically playing the last mile delivery scene. But why this interest in last mile delivery from a successful enterprise commerce platform?

Alibaba clearly has the global sourcing under its control. It would be hard to find a decent supplier or manufacturer in China (and beyond) who is not a verified (paying) member on its website. It dominates the Business to Business commerce. But whats next?

Their ambition now is not just to supply to distributors, traders, brands, and other intermediaries. They want to connect the producer to consumer. No intermediaries. It seems that now they have set their sights on Business to Consumer commerce. As a result, its business model is rapidly evolving from "Factory to Port" to "Factory to Door". And it is the last bit of "Port to Door" that Alibaba is now trying to sort out.

Imagine a world where an individual in Ulaan Bataar ( do you know where it is?) can use their phone to logon to Aliexpress, select anything that can be manufactured, verify the manufacturer, make payment and get it delivered the same/next day at its doorstep. This completely removes middlemen and the 7 time price hike from FOB price to MRP.

What does it mean for SMEs who are just intermediaries?
Death. Yes. All those businesses that thrive on being an intermediary and making money on inefficiencies and opaqueness of the market will eventually become irrelevant. Good luck to private equity players who are busy doing deals in "mature" intermediaries.

So where is the opportunity and what does this mean for Startups?
It is really important for all e-commerce related startups to think beyond just creating a shop front and throwing money on google adwords. Can they build a sustainable business model? What would be their edge when a common man can buy anything direct from the factory floor. Can they be part of the future value chain? Lots to think.. and act :)

Note: We have invested in www.anchanto.com that provides logistics and fulfillment services to businesses and brands in SE Asia and are looking for more opportunities to invest and build the businesses of future.

6 CEO types to avoid

I felt like I have mined a bitcoin when i recently came across this interview with Tom LeFevre, co-founder of Intuit on assessing startup CEOs. Link here for detailed interview: http://www.confmanager.com/main.cfm?cid=77&nid=14305

He highlighted six types of CEOs to avoid while investing - Functional Vice-presidents, Researchers, Inventors, Fund-raisers, Small businessperson, and Corporate Executives.

The first three types he called "not" CEOs because they lack general management skills. The remaining three types he called "flawed" CEOs.

1. Functional VPs: who were successful but never made the transition to CEO. When these CEOs encounter a business problem, they try to solve it using their functional skills. As an example, a CEO who had been a vice-president of sales in his past life, approached every problem by trying to get more sales. His company's problem was in operations. Sales volume was already more than the systems could handle, so more sales orders just made the problem worse. But this CEO couldn't make the transition from functional expert to general manager.

2. Researchers : Their passion is investigating the technology. The product never gets finished because there is always some issue they want to go explore. They spend their time and resources on that instead of commercializing.

3. Inventors : They like to invent things and may even come up with products, but they have no interest in commercialization.

4. Fund-Raisers: These people are really good at raising money for their company, but they aren't very good at running the business. They don't understand the customers. Products don't get done; revenue progress is weak.

The CEO is so good at selling the potential. There hasn't been a down round, but we're unlikely to ever see returns.

5. Small Businesspeople: These people have the CEO title and they sort of function as CEOs, but they don't really do the job. Either they lack focus, have low potential, or they can't scale. These CEOs can manage a seed stage startup with eight or ten people in one location but are over their heads once the company starts to gain traction and grow.

6. Corporate Executives: They typically don't understand the importance of cash in a start up and require high overhead to function. The company will end up with four "C" level executives, three vice-presidents, and twenty-eight managers in a low margin hundred-and-twenty-person company.

VCs : Adapt or get disrupted

Venture Capital industry makes its livelihood by investing in disruptors but the functioning of VCs have not changed much in decades. However, this is all about to change very soon.

Angel List is changing the way seed/early stage syndicates are formed. Google Ventures is changing the way Startups are spotted. 500 Startups is delocalising the industry. Corporate Venture arms are investing as early as Series A. Here are the 6 ways VCs need to adapt before its too late:

1. General Partner (GP) composition 
General Partners (GPs) have so far survived on being good generalists. But, entrepreneurs are getting more savvy. They are becoming more demanding. They are not just looking for money. They are looking for money + a platform, a network and a partner who can do business development for them. VC firms who invest in supplementing GPs with operating partners (for specialist assistance in growth hacking, hiring, business development, M&A, etc.) and in some cases, venture partners (for domain expertise) would attract more savvy founders. Obviously, this would mean a smaller pie of management fees but hopefully, a larger pie of carried interest based on better performance.

2. Delocalisation

Gone are days when aspiring entrepreneurs have to line up within 30 minutes driving distance of VC offices in Silicon Valley. New hot spots of innovation are emerging. With improvements in connectivity, it has become much easier to build a billion dollar Start-up (in some sectors) from Bangalore, Shanghai, Jakarta or Singapore. And, money follows opportunities. Sequoia is present in the US, India, China and Israel. Accel is present in the US, UK, India and China. And, they are not just investing in the countries they are present in but they are also syndicating with smaller funds around those regions. Some VCs might retain the criteria of investing locally within a certain travelling distance and end up having many more satelite offices as a result of that.

3. Data driven investing
This might sound a bit too geeky but it has been established that successful start-ups can be spotted better by applying data analytics techniques. Google Ventures claim to use some of those techniques. Firms like Angel List would have lot of clever data to predict the home runs of future. Savvy investors have successfully used algorithmic trading for gaining that unfair edge.

4. Increased spend (time and money) on Self branding and outreach 
Traditionally VCs have limited themselves to PR and marketing only when they invest in a Start-up or have had a successful exit. But things are changing for the good. They are now churning out blog posts, tweets, interviews, speeches, etc. Some are leading by making the ecosystem more transparent and providing thought leadership while others are quietly building sector and domain expertise. Some are even raking up air miles to speak at every possible opportunity anywhere in the world. 

5. Multiple stage funds 
Stage focus is going away. Investing in either seed or growth stage alone will be difficult. Micro VCs would find it difficult to survive because when Start-ups have a choice of raising money from someone who could do follow on funding versus someone who can't, they would choose the former. Also, growth stage VCs will find it hard to source deals. 

6. Syndication with Corporate Venture Capital firms
Corporate VCs are generally ignored because nobody likes Strategic investors at the early stages of a company. But I think they will become a much stronger force in the future. They are getting more aggressive and are even willing to invest at the seed stages.

What do you think? Anything you would like to add to the list?