The New “Capital‐Before‐Proof” Rule: Why Narrative Is Outshining Traction in the 20th Century
Venture capital has long preached a simple mantra to founders: prove it before we fund it.
Show us traction, revenue, growth curves – then you get the check. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. Yet a profound shift is underway in today’s investment ecosystem, revealing a flawed reality. The startups delivering outsized returns are not those with the biggest spreadsheets or longest track records – they are the ones with the most powerful narratives, resonant founder-market fit, and nearly gravitational social proof. In fact, the real winners build such an aura of possibility that capital flows before the proof ever materializes.
This thought leadership piece explores how the 20th-century venture market has turned conventional wisdom on its head. We’ll examine high-profile cases of companies that raised massive rounds pre-traction (especially in AI, Web3, and new venture infrastructure), show how story and strategic positioning often outweighed actual revenue, and compare the cautious legacy VC mindset with the emergent psychology of investors who “get” the new game. The data and examples make one thing clear: the old model of “wait for proof” is increasingly outdated – and those stuck in the past are missing out on generational opportunities.
Traction: The False Idol of a Bygone Era
For decades, traction – measured in users, revenue, or growth metrics – has been the golden standard for VCs to greenlight investments. Many investors still insist on a proven product-market fit or at least a working prototype with early users. In the wake of the 2022 market downturn, this conservatism only intensified. Founders report hearing the same refrains from traditionalist investors: “It’s too early,” “Come back when you have paying customers,” “We don’t invest pre-revenue,” etc. (linkedin.comlinkedin.com). This prove-it-first mentality is rooted in risk reduction – an attempt to see validation before taking a bet.
However, evidence is mounting that this mindset is not only limiting, it’s causing many investors to miss the very deals that create massive upside. Why? Because the most groundbreaking startups – the ones that define new categories or reshape industries – often don’t have meaningful traction when they raise their pivotal rounds. What they have instead is a compelling story and a founder whose personal fit with the problem makes success feel almost inevitable. Increasingly, the startup ecosystem shows that narrative can outweigh traction, privilege can outweigh performance, and networks can outweigh numbers (linkedin.com).
In other words, investors are already funding narrative over traction – just not always in a fair or transparent way. As VC Brian Laung Aoaeh pointed out, even ethically questionable startups can secure millions on story alone. In 2025, for example, the partner of disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes was able to raise nearly $20 million for a new blood-testing startup with “no product, no MVP, no customers, no go-to-market” – essentially nothing but the notoriety of his network and narrative (linkedin.comlinkedin.com). Several prominent investors passed, citing lack of any scientific validation, yet friends and associates (and likely a dose of FOMO) still filled a multi-million-dollar round for the company, dubbed Haemanthus (theguardian.com). Meanwhile, countless founders actually building real products with real traction continue to hear “come back later” from the old guard (linkedin.com). This stark contrast highlights a broken system of incentives.
The flaw in the current ecosystem is not that it values evidence (evidence is good); it’s that it pretends to be rational and traction-focused while, in practice, the biggest funding outcomes are driven by perception and narrative strength. Founders who take the conservative advice – focusing purely on proving metrics before they dream bigger – risk being leapfrogged by those who master the new rules of the game.
Narrative is King in the 2024–2025 Market
If traction is a false idol, narrative has become the true kingmaker.
A startup’s narrative is the story it tells about the future: why this team, why this market, why now, and how this could change everything. A powerful narrative taps into investors’ imagination and fear of missing out. It provides a vision of scale and impact that transcends whatever small proof points might exist today. And in the current climate, a strong narrative backed by the right voices can attract capital on astonishing terms – long before traditional proof catches up.
AI Gold Rush: Visionaries Get Funded Before Products
Nowhere is the triumph of narrative more evident than in the AI startup funding boom of 2023–2025.
Generative AI became the hottest story in tech, and investors chased that story with open wallets. The numbers are staggering: Roughly 40% of all money raised by U.S. venture funds in 2024 was directed at AI-focused startups, up from just 10% in 2021. (linkedin.com). Mega-rounds (funding deals of $100M or more) skewed heavily toward AI – in fact, AI companies made up about half of all mega-round funding by late 2024. (linkedin.com). This flood of capital wasn’t because all these startups had massive revenue or user bases – most didn’t. It was driven by a frenzy of narrative and FOMO around the transformative potential of AI.
Consider Inflection AI, founded in early 2022 by DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. In June 2023 – barely one year old – Inflection announced a jaw-dropping **$1.3 billion funding round valuing the company at $4 billion (reuters.comreuters.com). At the time, its consumer product (an AI chatbot named Pi) had just been released in beta, with no monetization and a team of only ~35 people (reuters.com).
How does a one-year-old startup with minimal traction raise one of the largest rounds ever? Narrative and founder-market fit.
Suleyman’s reputation in AI, the vision of “personal AI for everyone,” and the heavyweight backers involved (Microsoft, Nvidia, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, and others) created an aura that Inflection must be a winner in the coming AI age (news.crunchbase.comnews.crunchbase.com). Indeed, the lineup of celebrity investors itself became part of the narrative (“all the giants want a piece of this”) (news.crunchbase.com). No wonder capital flowed freely – proof could come later.
Europe saw a similar phenomenon with Mistral AI. Astonishingly, in mid-2023 a team of three French AI researchers left Big Tech and, within four weeks of founding their company, raised €105 million (≈$113M) in a seed round valuing Mistral at €240M (techcrunch.comtechcrunch.com). At the time of the raise, Mistral AI had no product at all – not even a prototype – just a small team of talented engineers and a bold plan to build open-source large language models in Europe.
It was reportedly the largest seed round in European history, achieved in record time. The CEO, Arthur Mensch (ex-DeepMind), and his co-founders convinced investors that they had the expertise to “take on OpenAI,” and that was enough (techcrunch.comtechcrunch.com). This kind of capital-before-product financing was essentially unheard of a few years ago, but in the frothy AI narrative of 2023, it became almost routine.
By 2024, AI startups reaching unicorn valuations with zero revenue became so common that a new term emerged: “zombiecorns.” These are companies valued at $1B+ on paper without proven business models – kept alive by the belief (or hope) that traction will eventually catch up to the story. An SVB report noted that over 30 AI startups hit unicorn status by early 2024 despite often having “$0 revenue [and] no clear path to market,” supported by more than $24 billion of VC money poured into AI startups in just Q1 2024 (linkedin.com). In many cases, flashy demos and well-connected founders substituted for actual customers. As one commentator put it, “VCs dumped $24B+ into AI startups in Q1 alone… behind the GenAI hype, many are facing weak product-market fit [and] burn rates outpacing traction” (linkedin.com).
In short: the narrative of AI’s promise has been so compelling that investors piled in first and asked questions later. Some of these bets will undoubtedly turn out to be too optimistic (hence the “zombiecorn” label), but those that do hit will deliver returns on a scale that no traction-oriented investment could match.
And it’s not just startups – even the incumbents of AI are leveraging narrative for enormous capital. OpenAI, the poster child of the AI revolution, reportedly entered 2024 in talks to raise new funding at a >$100 billion valuation (techcrunch.com), despite having only a few hundred million in 2023 revenue. By 2025, the company’s usage skyrocketed, and it projected $1B+ in 2024 sales, but investors were already valuing it far beyond traditional multiples (a rumored $80–90B valuation in late 2023, accelerating to a possible $300B valuation by 2025) (reuters.com). In fact, OpenAI signaled plans to raise as much as $40 billion more in 2025 with SoftBank at a $300B valuation (reuters.com) – an almost unprecedented figure in private tech. Clearly, the market leaders are being valued on world-changing narrative and strategic importance, not on near-term financials. Few, if any, companies in history have seen such high market caps relative to current revenue. But investors fear missing out on what they perceive as an inevitable AI future – a “system perception” that whoever owns the leading AI platforms will reap enormous monopolistic rewards. That system-wide belief is driving capital to chase companies like OpenAI ahead of the proof that their economics justify it.
Web3 and Crypto: When Hype Trumps Winter
Just a year or two ago, one might have thought the era of narrative excess in crypto had faded – after the 2022 crash, venture funding for Web3 startups cratered 82% year-over-year into early 2023 (news.crunchbase.com). Most investors got skittish about anything without clear utility. Yet even in this cautious environment, the power of a great story and a superstar founder could overcome the winter. Nowhere is this clearer than with Worldcoin, the controversial digital identity crypto project co-founded by Sam Altman (better known as the CEO of OpenAI). In May 2023, Tools for Humanity – the company building Worldcoin – raised a $115 million Series C led by top crypto VCs (a16z crypto, Blockchain Capital, Bain Capital Crypto) (news.crunchbase.com). This was one of the largest crypto raises of the year, at a time when most crypto startups struggled to get even modest funding. Worldcoin had no significant revenue (it was still beta-testing its eye-scanning Orb devices for “proof of personhood”), and plenty of controversy regarding privacy.
But the narrative was immensely ambitious: create a global network of verified humans and potentially enable a form of universal basic income via crypto. Coupled with Altman’s name and the buzz of blending AI with blockchain, that vision proved magnetic to investors. The company even reportedly sought a valuation as high as $3 billion during the raise (news.crunchbase.com). In short, Worldcoin’s story – tying the future of AI-driven economies to a new kind of digital identity – trumped the fact that Web3 by and large was in a funding downturn (news.crunchbase.com). It was a classic case of capital-before-proof: investors betting on an idea’s world-changing potential (and a founder’s pedigree) rather than waiting for user adoption to be shown at scale.
Other Web3 examples abound. From NFT marketplaces to decentralized finance protocols, the 2021–2022 boom showed that projects could attract millions in minutes based on narrative and community, with little more than a whitepaper or token promise. By 2024, the frenzy cooled, but the most visionary crypto plays still found backers pre-traction. For instance, developer platforms aiming to be the “AWS of Web3” or new blockchain infrastructures often raised significant seed and Series A rounds in 2024 on the strength of their teams’ reputations (ex-Googlers, Ethereum core devs, etc.) and the narrative that they could unlock the next wave of decentralized innovation. Actual usage of their networks was secondary; the funding was about securing a stake in the future should their thesis prove right.
New Venture Infrastructure & Founder Credibility: Betting on the Builder
Another arena where narrative has outweighed experience or traction is in the infrastructure around startups and venture capital itself.
Emerging platforms that change how companies get built or funded have gained attention – think of roll-up vehicles, founder-investor matching platforms, or novel fund structures. Some of these “venture infra” startups secured large rounds with minimal revenue by selling a vision of a transformed venture capital landscape. For example, in late 2024, several platforms promising to democratize startup investing (via blockchain tokens, DAOs, or streamlined syndicate processes) raised funding simply on the thesis that the VC system is ripe for disruption. Ironically, the pitch to VCs was that these new platforms could make VCs themselves obsolete or more efficient – a narrative strong enough to win backing from forward-looking investors before any real market traction.
Most importantly, the individuals behind a venture can be an outsized part of its narrative. A trend in 2024–2025 is high-profile founders raising “pre-traction” rounds for new startups immediately after leaving successful companies or exiting previous startups. Their new ventures attract what one might call resume capital: money invested based on the founder’s prior track record and perceived ability to dominate a new market. For instance, when Instagram’s co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger returned with a new idea (the news app Artifact) in 2023, they quickly raised funding not because the app had traction at the time (it was nascent) but because their founder-market resonance was proven – they had built a social media giant before, so investors lined up to bet they could do it again in a different domain. Similarly, when renowned AI researchers or executives (say, OpenAI or Google Brain alumni) strike out on their own, they often secure significant seed financing essentially on day zero. A notable case: Character.AI, started by two ex-Google engineers who worked on advanced language models. Before any revenue and right around product launch, Character.AI raised a $150 million Series A in March 2023 at a $1 billion valuation led by Andreessen Horowitz (demandsage.com). The company’s only “traction” at the time was rapidly growing user engagement with its AI chatbot app, but no monetization. The selling point to investors was the caliber of the founders and the narrative that conversational AI could be “the next big platform”. Indeed, rumors by late 2023 suggested Character.AI might raise at a valuation as high as $5B on the back of its user growth and AI trend, long before proving a sustainable business model (research.contrary.com). That huge bet was again a case of capital chasing a compelling story (and fear of missing out on the next ChatGPT-like phenomenon) rather than waiting for conventional proof.
Legacy VCs vs Visionary Investors: A Psychological Schism
The rise of narrative-driven investing has created a noticeable split in the investor community. On one side are the “legacy” venture investors – those who grew up in an era of enterprise SaaS multiples, diligence, and a methodical approach to company-building. They often pride themselves on pattern recognition honed over decades. But as one industry observer noted, “the pattern VCs are trained to recognize looks nothing like most of us… the startup world was never designed to be a meritocracy” (linkedin.com). In practice, this means many traditional VCs fall back on familiar signals (the schools founders attended, the companies they’ve worked at, warm introductions from their network, etc.) as proxies for success – which can exclude out-of-pattern founders. These VCs also tend to be more skeptical of hype. They will ask the hard questions about unit economics, require a “real” business plan for how AI or blockchain will make money, and shy away from funding things that don’t fit into an existing market rubric.
On the other side are what we might call the “visionary” investors – those who actively seek discontinuity and big swings. These include a new generation of VC firms and crossover funds, as well as big-pocketed players like corporates or hedge funds that are less encumbered by Sand Hill Road orthodoxy. Visionary investors are willing to suspend disbelief if they sense a huge opportunity. They are often motivated by FOMO (fear of missing out) on the next paradigm shift. They’ll move fast and early to back a talented founder with an audacious plan, preferring to be in the game rather than watch from the sidelines until it’s “de-risked.”
This psychological schism was apparent in the AI boom. Many traditional VCs, while publicly excited about AI, behaved conservatively when faced with truly radical AI proposals. As tech investor Eldad Tamir observed, “VCs say they want AI. But what many really want is AI that fits their comfort zone, not AI that redefines it.” (linkedin.comlinkedin.com) He notes that if you pitch a truly paradigm-shifting AI idea – one that implies a whole new market or the obsolescence of an old industry – a typical response from a cautious investor is “Let’s see some revenue first” or “Come back when you have more proof” (linkedin.com). Traditional VCs excelled at funding incremental innovation, but they struggle with proposals that break the mold entirely (linkedin.comlinkedin.com). For example, an AI startup aiming to fully automate investment management (no human fund managers at all) might be told “interesting, but it’s not a proven market – we’ll wait” (linkedin.com). In contrast, investors with a more visionary bent would recognize that if such a startup succeeds, it could revolutionize finance – and they’d want in early, precisely because it’s unproven.
This difference in attitude leads to very different portfolios. The “legacy” camp, insisting on evidence, often ends up backing companies that have solid traction but perhaps limited upside – think enterprise software companies with steady growth, or consumer apps that have decent user adoption and monetization. There’s nothing wrong with those, but they’re unlikely to be the 100x moonshots. Meanwhile, the visionary camp places bets on companies that might look crazy or overhyped – until they become the next $10B or $100B giant. These investors often have to endure criticism (and a higher failure rate), but when they hit, they hit big.
One could argue that the classic VC firms are aware of this and try to straddle both modes – indeed, some legendary firms have made their name by occasionally throwing the rulebook out and following a gut conviction on a visionary founder. But by and large, the industry’s institutional processes still tilt toward caution, especially after the bubble corrections of 2022. This sets the stage for upstarts and non-traditional investors to swoop in and lead rounds that the old guard hesitated on.
We saw this with Inflection AI’s huge round – it was led by individuals and strategic corporate money (Microsoft, Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates) rather than solely blue-chip VC firms (news.crunchbase.comnews.crunchbase.com). Similarly, many of the biggest AI raises (Anthropic’s multi-billion rounds, OpenAI’s funding, etc.) involved partnerships with big tech companies or funds like SoftBank and Thrive, who were willing to pay a premium for narrative dominance. Traditional venture firms, if they participated, often followed rather than led, or they were absent entirely because the valuations defied their usual models. In crypto, a firm like A16z (Andreessen Horowitz) explicitly reinvented itself as a “we believe in the crazy” fund, plowing money into Web3 and AI when others retrenched. This allowed them to own large stakes in projects that, if they pan out, could define the future internet – and if not, it was accepted as part of the high-risk strategy.
The irony is palpable: after the 2021 exuberance, many legacy investors preached a “back to fundamentals” gospel in 2023. But by 2024, those who stuck strictly to that mantra found themselves largely spectators to the biggest new waves (generative AI, etc.), while more daring capitalizers seized the moment. As Tamir encapsulates, “that’s where the real opportunity lies – for founders bold enough to ignore the wait-and-see crowd and build the future anyway” (linkedin.com). The same goes for investors: the real opportunity lies in having the courage to back those bold founders before the rest of the world sees the proof.
Data Doesn’t Lie: “Prove-It-First” is Losing Ground
Let’s complement these anecdotes with some concrete market analysis from 2024–2025:
Capital Concentration in Narrative-Driven Sectors: Venture funding is flowing disproportionately into sectors driven by big narratives. We already noted that nearly half of all U.S. venture mega-deal dollars in late 2024 were going to AI companies (linkedin.com), often pre-revenue. Likewise, while overall startup funding in some areas fell to multi-year lows, funding for AI-related startups hit record highs. According to Silicon Valley Bank, 45% of U.S. venture investment in enterprise software in 2024 was in AI companies (up from just 9% in 2022) (linkedin.com) – a seismic shift in allocation. This suggests that even enterprise investors are betting on the narrative of AI transforming software, rather than waiting for each AI startup to have stable enterprise ARR.
Non-AI Startups Struggle Regardless of Traction: The corollary is that many solid startups outside the hot narrative domains found fundraising painfully hard in 2024–25. As LinkedIn News reported, “there is no meaningful uptick [in funding] for companies not leveraging AI” during 2024 (linkedin.com). Some robust SaaS or consumer companies with steady growth were starved for capital because they weren’t buzzword-compliant. This led to the rise of so-called “zombiecorns” – not the AI ones mentioned earlier, but normal startups that had reached decent scale yet couldn’t raise follow-on funding, stuck in limbo. Why? Because many investors were busy chasing the next AI deal instead. In other words, strong traction in a “boring” sector often lost out to zero traction in a sexy sector when it came to securing term sheets.
Diversity Data Underscores the Bias: If proof and performance were truly king, one would expect capital to flow to those who show results, regardless of background. But data on funding to underrepresented founders in 2024 exposes a harsh truth. Black founders received just 0.4% of U.S. VC funding in 2024, women founders around 2%, and Latino founders <1.5% (linkedin.com) – figures that remain abysmally low. Many of these founders have solid businesses and traction, yet they struggle to raise, hearing all the usual excuses (“too early/late,” “come back with more proof”). Meanwhile, as we saw, someone with the “right” network or narrative can raise an outsized round with no product at all (linkedin.com). This isn’t just a social issue; it underscores the central thesis: the investment ecosystem isn’t a pure meritocracy based on traction. It’s driven by pattern recognition and narrative bias. The patterns historically favored by VCs often correlate with particular pedigrees and networks – which means if you match the narrative they like, you can get funded on vision, but if you don’t, you’re asked for much more proof. This status quo is precisely what visionary investors and progressive firms are trying to upend, because it’s leaving money – and innovation – on the table.
Emerging Proof of Narrative’s Payoff: While it’s early to judge outcomes, we can already glimpse how some “capital-before-proof” bets are paying off big. For example, early backers of OpenAI’s 2019 and 2021 funding rounds (when it was valued in the low tens of billions) saw their stakes multiply in value by 2023–2024 as new investors came in at 4–5x higher valuations (reuters.comtechcrunch.com). Similarly, those who seeded companies like Inflection, Character.AI, or Mistral at idea stage could see massive mark-ups in less than 18 months as these turned into unicorns essentially overnight. Yes, some such bets will fizzle – but the power-law math of venture capital means one breakout success can make an entire fund. The firms that secured meaningful ownership in a category winner by being early (and bold) will massively outperform those that only wrote safe checks into already-proven businesses. It’s telling that some of the best-performing VC funds in recent years were the ones that led pre-traction deals in companies like Stripe, Coinbase, or Databricks back in the day. The pattern is repeating now in new guise.
All this data builds to a clear conclusion: the prove-it-first model is increasingly misaligned with where value is being created today.
It’s not that having revenue or users is bad; it’s that by the time you have those in obvious numbers, the truly explosive growth in valuation may already be spoken for. Legacy investors who insist on waiting for substantial proof are finding themselves entering deals at much higher valuations (if at all), basically buying into companies after the narrative-driven surge has happened. They end up owning less of the company for more money, thus missing the massive upside that went to earlier believers.
The New Rule: Build Signal Before Proof
Where does this leave founders and investors? It heralds a new rule for the startup game in 2025 and beyond:
Build a signal so strong that capital comes to you before the proof.
“Signal” here means the combination of narrative strength, founder-market resonance, and strategic social proof that together create inevitability in the eyes of the market.
If you as a founder can craft a story of the future that’s both huge and credible – and if you embody that story through your background, team, and early actions – then capital will seek you out, often on favorable terms, even absent traditional proof points.
Think of it as creating a gravity well: the larger your perceived vision and credibility, the more investors don’t want to be left out, and the more they’re willing to pre-emptively commit. This is exactly what we saw with those AI examples – the founders communicated such a compelling vision (backed by early demos or research, perhaps) that investors practically knocked down the door to give them money to go faster. As an entrepreneur, that’s the position you want to be in.
For investors, the new rule is a litmus test: Are you a visionary or a laggard? If you find yourself always waiting for another data point, insisting on one more pilot customer or six more months of revenue, you may win on consistency but you’ll lose on the moonshots. The visionary investor has to develop a gut for narrative – to discern between empty hype and the kind of story that signals a paradigm shift with the right person at the helm. It’s as much art as science. The good news is, information flows are faster than ever; by plugging into founder communities, research hubs, and trend networks, investors can spot these narrative waves early. The challenge is having the courage (and LP support) to act on them.
Of course, none of this means that traction is irrelevant or that startups can succeed without eventually “making the numbers.” A company that perpetually runs on narrative without delivering will eventually falter (the world is littered with fallen hype-stars). The point is timing: the biggest opportunities today require backing before conventional proof is visible. The proof will come, but by then the market may already belong to someone else. It’s analogous to public stock investors waiting for a company to be profitable before buying in – by that time, the highest growth in stock price has already occurred. Venture is about buying the future at a discount; narrative is the language of the future, whereas traction is the language of the present.
The current investment ecosystem, in prioritizing present traction and familiar signals, often fails to price the future correctly. Visionary founders exploit this by manufacturing a narrative premium: they make the future feel so tangible that smart money would rather pay now than wait for proof (when it’ll be too late). And visionary investors exploit it by paying up early when others won’t – capturing outsized ownership in the companies that go on to dominate.
Embrace the Narrative – or Be Left Behind
Here in the early 20th century, we’ve learned that the scales have tipped. Narrative, founder-market fit, and ecosystem buzz are not fluffy intangibles; they have become leading indicators of value and crucial drivers of investment returns. The startup world’s biggest winners of this era – from AI titans to crypto plays to new venture models – were funded not after they proved themselves, but before. They were propelled by believers who saw the signal and bet on the proof coming later.
The traditionalist credo of “traction, traction, traction” is not a winning formula when technology is moving at breakneck speed and entirely new markets (AI, Web3, etc.) can appear in months. By the time traction is evident, the window to shape the market may have closed. Legacy investors stuck in this mindset risk becoming like generals fighting the last war – deploying strategies that miss the moment we’re in.
For founders, the message is empowering: don’t let lack of early revenue stop you from aiming high and telling a bold story. Investors may ask for proof, but the right ones will be moved by potential. Focus on crafting a narrative backed by genuine insight and assembling supporters who give it credibility (be it notable angels, pilot partners, or your own pedigree). That narrative can be worth tens of millions in funding – the fuel to actually create the traction everyone asks for.
For investors, the call to action is clear: evolve or miss out. This doesn’t mean throwing all diligence out the window, but it does mean recalibrating what “proof” truly matters. In an era of rapid innovation, qualitative signals – a uniquely qualified founder, a massive market shift, an early passionate user base even if small – can matter more than last quarter’s revenue. The best investors are already doing this, effectively becoming storytellers and recruiters as much as spreadsheet analysts. They’re the ones leading the rounds that have everyone else saying, “How did they justify that valuation?” – until a year later when it looks like a steal.
In the end, the venture game has always been about the outliers. To find them, we must be willing to believe in things before they are real. As the past two years have shown, those who do can reap extraordinary rewards. Narrative is the new moat, and perception can create its own reality – or at least carry a company to the point where reality catches up.
The ecosystem may be flawed, but it is changing. The narrative-first investors and founders are collaboratively bending the rules of what gets funded. Capital-before-proof is not a fantasy; it’s becoming the new normal for those playing at the cutting edge.
The only question is: which side of this shift will you be on?
Invest in Modern Ancients today. Contact: weare@modernancients.com.
Read More of Our Thinking
Featured
