How To Make Money in Venture | Josh Kopelman, Co-Founder of First Round Capital | Ep. 8

How To Make Money in Venture | Josh Kopelman, Co-Founder of First Round Capital | Ep. 8

Josh Kopelman (guest), Jack Altman (host)

GP vs LP dynamics in modern ventureMega-funds, scale vs alpha, Blackstone-ificationVenture Arrogance Score (fund size × exit ownership math)Duration/IRR impact and long time-to-liquidityHyper-concentration of returns in bubble windowsRelevancy, access, and the Matthew effect in private marketsSoftware eating the world vs margin reality; AI margin asteriskFirst Round’s early-stage focus, ownership targets, mortality curvesSecondaries/tenders as partial de-risking without full exitOperating a VC firm like a product company (rubrics, “game tape”)

In this episode of Uncapped with Jack Altman, featuring Josh Kopelman and Jack Altman, How To Make Money in Venture | Josh Kopelman, Co-Founder of First Round Capital | Ep. 8 explores josh Kopelman on venture returns, scale, cycles, and discipline now Kopelman argues venture has structurally changed: the number of funds and check-writers has exploded, and mega-funds increasingly pursue a scale/AUM game rather than classic outperformance (alpha).

Josh Kopelman on venture returns, scale, cycles, and discipline now

Kopelman argues venture has structurally changed: the number of funds and check-writers has exploded, and mega-funds increasingly pursue a scale/AUM game rather than classic outperformance (alpha).

He introduces a practical framework—his “Venture Arrogance Score”—to show how fund size and expected ownership imply an often-unrealistic share of total market exit value required to hit target multiples.

A core theme is that venture returns are extremely time- and cycle-concentrated: most profits are generated during brief “hyper-harvest” windows of extreme market greed, making duration and premature exits major IRR killers.

He also critiques the post–“Software is Eating the World” expansion of venture into many sectors where margin superiority didn’t materialize, and shares how First Round operationalizes decision-making as a product via rigorous internal process and a non-investing “CEO” role.

Key Takeaways

Venture’s competitive surface area has massively expanded.

Kopelman notes the ecosystem grew from <1,000 funds in 2004 to 10,000+ today, with 20,000+ active check-writers—raising competition for deals and shifting power toward founders via more available capital.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

LP return expectations are diverging, enabling new venture models.

Traditional endowment-driven venture traded illiquidity for 20%+ IRRs; newer pools (e. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Fund size math can imply unrealistic market-share assumptions.

The “Venture Arrogance Score” frames success as the percentage of total annual exit value a fund must capture; at multi-billion sizes and ~10% ownership at exit, hitting 3–4x can require implausibly large shares of total venture outcomes.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Duration can turn a ‘great multiple’ into mediocre IRR.

He contrasts a 4x fund over ~10 years (~27. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Venture profits arrive in short, extreme ‘hyper-harvest’ windows.

Using historical data, he claims a VC career’s profits can be overwhelmingly concentrated near bubble peaks (e. ...

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Exiting ‘too early’ is often more costly than holding ‘too long.’

He emphasizes the difficulty of not selling into acknowledged froth; as an example, he suggests Looker’s $2B exit could have been $8–10B three years later due largely to multiple expansion, not business fundamentals.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Relevancy creates access in private markets—even if returns lag briefly.

Because access is scarce, firms that are active and visible can win more deals (“activity begets activity”); however, he argues relevancy without returns isn’t durable over long periods (citing Tiger/SoftBank’s shifting perception).

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

‘Software ate the world’ expanded venture’s aperture, but margins didn’t reliably follow.

Venture increasingly funded banks, insurance, consumer brands, and services at “software multiples,” assuming margin superiority; many ended up valued like their underlying industries when margin structure remained traditional.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

AI likely drives real societal change, but seed selection still centers on people+problem.

Despite being bullish on AI’s impact (health, energy, education), Kopelman says First Round isn’t “theme-smart” enough to top-down pick trends early; they underwrite founders and problems more than early solutions.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Treat decision-making as the venture firm’s core product.

First Round operationalizes learning with pre-meeting writeups, a 36-question independent scoring rubric before discussion, and “game tape” records—enabled by a dedicated operator/‘CEO’ role (Brett) to run experiments and institutionalize process.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Notable Quotes

You need two numbers to understand any fund's business model: how large is the fund, and what percent of a company do you think they'll own on exit?

Josh Kopelman

You're saying that you and your fund... are going to capture half of all venture value created every year... just to generate that.

Josh Kopelman

A four X fund... over eighteen years is an eleven and a half percent IRR.

Josh Kopelman

We don't make our money in equilibrium. We make our money in disequilibrium... in the extreme fucking greed cycle.

Josh Kopelman

In venture, activity begets activity.

Josh Kopelman

Questions Answered in This Episode

Can you walk through the Venture Arrogance Score with a smaller (e.g., $500M) fund and a mega-fund side-by-side—what ownership and exit environment assumptions change most?

Kopelman argues venture has structurally changed: the number of funds and check-writers has exploded, and mega-funds increasingly pursue a scale/AUM game rather than classic outperformance (alpha).

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

In your view, what is a ‘reasonable’ percentage of total annual venture exit value for any single fund to expect to capture, and how should LPs benchmark that?

He introduces a practical framework—his “Venture Arrogance Score”—to show how fund size and expected ownership imply an often-unrealistic share of total market exit value required to hit target multiples.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

You distinguish “cash-on-cash” vs “IRR” games—what concrete signals tell you a firm has switched games even if they market themselves as traditional venture?

A core theme is that venture returns are extremely time- and cycle-concentrated: most profits are generated during brief “hyper-harvest” windows of extreme market greed, making duration and premature exits major IRR killers.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

On duration risk: what fund structures (continuation vehicles, secondaries, evergreen capital) best preserve IRR without forcing premature exits?

He also critiques the post–“Software is Eating the World” expansion of venture into many sectors where margin superiority didn’t materialize, and shares how First Round operationalizes decision-making as a product via rigorous internal process and a non-investing “CEO” role.

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

You argue returns are made in hyper-harvest windows—what are the most reliable real-time indicators of that window (beyond obvious hype like SPACs/NFTs)?

Get the full analysis with uListen AI

Transcript Preview

Josh Kopelman

It was universally acknowledged we were in a bubble.

Jack Altman

Everybody knew it.

Josh Kopelman

Oh, like the Fed chair, irrational exuberance, Pets.com sock puppet, like, total irrationality. And if you had said, "Oh, no, we're in a bubble," and you said, "I want to sell and exit now," you would've given up eighty-three percent of your profit. You would've made seventeen percent of the total returns you could have made.

Jack Altman

[upbeat music] All right, Josh, thank you so much for being here. I'm really excited to do this with you today.

Josh Kopelman

I'm excited, too.

Jack Altman

I wanna start with the state of venture. So you started First Round in two thousand and four, so it's over twenty years now, which is awesome, and, um, you've seen a bunch of cycles, and venture has changed, like, a huge amount in that time. And the lay of the land today is different than it's ever been. It's different than when I was building Lattice even, where now we've got not just, like, one or two big firms, but you've got, like, six or eight or ten venture firms that are billions and billions of dollars, and we're not that big of an overall ecosystem in venture. And then, of course, you have a lot of smaller firms. But it seems categorically different because now you're hearing about firms that are playing different games than we've ever played before. And so I kind of wanted to start by just hearing your reflections of where we are as an ecosystem of venture generally around this dynamic.

Josh Kopelman

It's been fascinating to watch. So I think we should talk about it two ways. The first way we could talk about it is, how is it playing at the GP side, and how is it playing at the LP side? 'Cause at the GP side, right, in two thousand and four, you had fewer than eight hundred and fifty funds. If you looked at, like, active check writers, people that were writing more than one check a year, probably a thousand, two thousand people. Today, there's over ten thousand funds. You probably have over twenty thousand active check writers out there. That, that's a change, and I think everyone's commented on it. And, and look, does it make the industry harder for VCs? Sure. Is it probably better for entrepreneurs? Yeah, more capital out there funding more ideas. I think what hasn't been talked about are these fund size changes and what that means for LPs. You know, I think when we started, uh, David Swensen pretty much, like, created the institutional venture asset class. He put us in business at First Round at Yale, um, and you had, like, university endowments and a very select customer that basically said, "We'll take illiquidity in order to get outperformance." And they really... Like, those two matched, right? You needed to have ten-plus years illiquidity in order to get a twenty-plus percent IRR, and that was the deal.

Jack Altman

And it happened.

Josh Kopelman

And it happened, right? Like, by and large, you had real good exits, and it, it, it really created the asset class. But, like, I think there are a lot of smart investors out there and smart VCs, and they said: "You know, there's a lot of capital out there. There's capital that hasn't been able to get into this asset class, a lot of capital with, like, bigger purses, sovereign wealth funds, et cetera, and, you know, they might be willing-- they might have a different cost of capital. They might, instead of targeting a twenty-five percent or a four X, they might be looking at a two X or a twelve percent IRR, and they'll take the same illiquidity." And when you bring new investors with different capital returns expectations, it could be really transformational for the industry. So, like, the bull case is the Blackstone-ification of venture, right? You know, what Blackstone did is say it's not about alpha, it's about scale, right? If, if... Let's, let's give an example. If you had a billion dollars, and it was a traditional venture fund, and it could do thirty percent IRR, that's awesome. That's, like, three hundred million dollars. And if you had a... Now, on the other hand, if you had a hundred billion dollar fund and it could do twelve percent IRR, well, that's twelve billion dollars. That's a lot more than the three hundred million in the first.

Install uListen to search the full transcript and get AI-powered insights

Get Full Transcript

Get more from every podcast

AI summaries, searchable transcripts, and fact-checking. Free forever.

Add to Chrome