"Disenchantment Theory 4: VC is not superior" VC, the full name is Venture Capital, also known as venture capital in Chinese. That is, investing on the basis of taking a certain degree of risk There are two main types of VCs in the market: those that do well are called top investment institutions, and those that do not do well are called large retail investors At the same time, the main work content of VC is divided into four aspects: fundraising, investment, management and withdrawal, of which fundraising and investment are pre-investment work, and management and withdrawal are post-investment work The former is mainly to raise funds required by the institution, and spread all the funds into different projects (with KPIs) within a certain period of time; The latter is mainly to provide a series of services for the projects invested by the institution, and provide appropriate help and guidance, so that the follow-up projects can earn income when they exit after TGE So what exactly is the situation and yield of the VC market? It's still the classic rule of 28, with 20% of the top institutions earning 80% of the gains in the primary market The reason for this is that the top organizations are extremely competitive in all four areas mentioned above, while most VCs are usually only capable in one or two areas Although VCs that only raise funds can obtain sufficient investment funds for investment, they have huge shortcomings in follow-up project tracking and various problem handling. This often results in institutions being very rich, but it is difficult to recover what they have invested in It is generally difficult to see VCs who will only manage and retreat, and in most cases their funds are small, so even if they do a good job of retreating, their income is also capped In addition, this round of the cycle does not have too much technological innovation in a substantive sense, but mainly revolves around asset issuance and distribution channels. This makes it difficult for the primary market to maintain a relatively normal investment environment in the past, prompting a large number of VCs to frantically huddle together and put themselves in the inner circle In the end, the VCs in the core inner circle make money, and at worst, they don't make money or lose money; VCs who are not in the inner circle disappear into the continuous update and iteration of the market Is this very similar to the current on-chain market? Therefore, when researching a project, don't trust VC endorsements too much, unless you can distinguish which VCs are really powerful and which VCs are really large retail investors Otherwise, it will be used as a low-priority reference, and it will depend more on whether the project itself has PMF, the prospect of the ecological track it is in, the background of team resources, and so on Trust that you're doing better than most VCs for what you've put in your research, and the market will reward people for their insights Let's disenchant VC together