You’re post-PMF. Revenue is real but uneven — somewhere between $50K and $3M ARR. Growth is happening, but in fits and starts. You’ve outgrown the generic accelerator, and now you face a sharper question: bring in operators who do the work, or advisors who shape the work? The co-building vs advising venture studio model decision
You found product-market fit. Revenue is real — somewhere between $50K and $3M ARR. And now you’re staring at a problem that feels nothing like the one you just solved. The build problem is behind you. The scaling problem is in front of you, and it’s a different beast entirely. Here’s what keeps nagging at
A venture studio carry waterfall, explained in one line, is the ordered set of rules that decides how exit proceeds get split between the studio, its investors, and you — the founding team — typically returning invested capital first, paying a preferred return, then dividing the profits known as “carry.” It refers to the sequence
You closed your seed round. You hit product-market fit. Then a venture studio slides a term sheet across the table — and half the document reads like a foreign language. A venture studio GP commit structure refers to how the studio’s general partners contribute their own capital into the studio’s fund or holding company —