Have seen a lot of hyperbolic "pre-seed and seed are dead" responses to this. Non-hyperbolic thoughts: > traditional seed will def start to miss certain companies. The "why invest first round" (vs. seed etc) pitch for my Fund I was explicitly the belief that it's cheaper than ever to go from idea to revenue (faster than ever), thus blowing past seed straight from inception to an A (or never raise again!!) > even with chances to grow hyperbolically, the vast majority of teams still need capital to get started (i.e. at inception stage). I invested inception stage (to my last point) because there is a high chance a lot of future winners may not raise a true seed round > not every company grows hyperbolically (esp hardware) and winners (in terms of DPI) are not determined in the first 18-24 months of a company's life cycle. while some great companies will skip seed rounds, there will still be plenty of great companies to back at seed > I suspect many seed funds will try to pivot to play at the A vs leaning into inception stage. many incentives to do so