A report on North American and European university VC funds supports NACO's recent report that identifies a significant pre-seed funding gap for innovative Canadian startups
Yes, this is getting to the heart of the matter. It really may be more of a ‘spray and pray’ approach at that stage. I think regenerative fund models make a lot of sense where eventual returns are reinvested in the system itself that propagates more innovation.
I hesitate to call it a university fund though, because these funds are largely the actual foundations of positive societal change - it is investing in our own advancement collectively, and isolating it to universities makes it sound like a niche project. (Just a thought to consider)..
Yeah, I can understand that. Let me be more clear in saying instead that early stage (pre TRL 6 and in particular TRL 4-6) can’t be evaluated by typical investment return probabilities and timelines, so you have to have a broader approach to bridge the gap. It isn’t invest in all things, but it can’t be invest in only the ‘winners’ either, because that predictable at that stage.
I don't like the "spray and pray" framing - that's not really what is happening. Rather, it is acknowledging that there is more to value creation than just profit, and broadly investing unlocks those other "bottom lines" in ways that picking winners does not.
Fair that university fund may be too narrowly scoped - there is a worthy philosophical question to be considered about who should benefit (university vs society at large) and why those things may not always be the same thing. Points to deeper misalignment in some cases.
Yes, this is getting to the heart of the matter. It really may be more of a ‘spray and pray’ approach at that stage. I think regenerative fund models make a lot of sense where eventual returns are reinvested in the system itself that propagates more innovation.
I hesitate to call it a university fund though, because these funds are largely the actual foundations of positive societal change - it is investing in our own advancement collectively, and isolating it to universities makes it sound like a niche project. (Just a thought to consider)..
Yeah, I can understand that. Let me be more clear in saying instead that early stage (pre TRL 6 and in particular TRL 4-6) can’t be evaluated by typical investment return probabilities and timelines, so you have to have a broader approach to bridge the gap. It isn’t invest in all things, but it can’t be invest in only the ‘winners’ either, because that predictable at that stage.
I don't like the "spray and pray" framing - that's not really what is happening. Rather, it is acknowledging that there is more to value creation than just profit, and broadly investing unlocks those other "bottom lines" in ways that picking winners does not.
Fair that university fund may be too narrowly scoped - there is a worthy philosophical question to be considered about who should benefit (university vs society at large) and why those things may not always be the same thing. Points to deeper misalignment in some cases.