Peter Walker

Head of Insights @ Carta | Data Storyteller

Weaving data into brand storytelling for the next generation of company owners.

Startup data delivered directly to your inbox of choice every Thursday morning:
https://carta.com/subscribe/data-newsletter-sign-up/

Senior Director, Insights

This is a model of how startups are built. Question: when along this curve is the right time to raise venture capital?

Is it during the experimentation/pivoting phase, to elongate runway?

Is it as "starts working" happens, to fuel growth?

Is it post-product market fit, to bridge to the next iteration of PMF (which is usually not a single point in time)?

Or does it depend on external factors like competitive environment, market conditions, etc?

Bad advice: don't build startups that touch the real world.

Look, hardware is hard. Biotech is hard. Energy startups are hard! 

There's a reason why "choose bits, not atoms" is a standard line across many VCs who shun physical startups in favor of software ones.

But the tide does seem to be shifting, ever so slowly.

Chart below breaks out capital invested into Carta startups by year. in 2016/2017, software startups took in about 80% of all capital.

In 2025, the share going to software was down to 64%. 

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗪𝗵𝘆

• There has been a resurgence of interest into deep tech categories lately. Maybe some of that is narrative (American Dynamism, defense+aerospace, etc). Maybe some of that is the idea that moats in software are declining in the age of AI.
  
• There has been an increase in the number of companies attempting to pull of software + hardware models.
  
• Hardware itself (especially robotics) is experiencing a real boom.
  
• The number of VC funds has grown immensely and the need to specialize / differentiate as an investor has never been greater. 
  
• Certain deep tech categories like Hardware have pulled ahead of Biotech, which was the old stalwart in the deep tech space. But there are still laggards (Med Device + Energy probably deserve more attention than they receive).
  
• Regulatory concerns play a bigger role in many deep tech sectors than in pure software, but interaction with the government on state and federal levels is getting fractionally easier over time.

Respect to the founders building in the real world!

Say it with me: no more conference panels. 

In order of usefulness, the current conference stage formats are:

1) Keynotes

2) Fireside Chats

3-99) …

100) Panels

To be clear, I’m not saying the average keynote or fireside chat is excellent. But they offer the chance for excellence in a way panels do not. 

Panels are usually thrown together with people who refuse to disagree with one another (understandably, since they just met) and practically invite the audience to look at their phones while the 3rd panelist repeats the point made by the prior 2. 

They are also deeply dependent on the moderator and there are very few great ones. 

Not even a knock on the panelists themselves really, it’s the structure that sucks. 

We can do better!

2 Ideas for formats in place of panels:

- Debates

Not sure of what level of formality, but I’d love to see a topic vigorously debated by two people who hold opposing views. 

- Multiplayer keynotes

Instead of 1 person covering a big topic like “GTM in the AI Age”, get 3 and each of them gets 10 minutes to talk about a stage of that process. 

Down with the panel. Time for something new.

"Oh, no worries, we'll raise every 18 months or so"  ...good luck!

VC world has changed. The old advice was to raise a venture round every 18-24 months (green zone in the below chart).

That is 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 out of date. 

Median time between rounds (the circles in each range) is now above 2 years for Seed -> A, A -> B, and 
B -> C.

And on the upper end of the scale, founders are having to make do for a lot longer than planned. The 75th percentile for time between rounds is now above 3.5 years for all these stages.

But what about all those headlines of AI-native companies raising every 6 months for wildly increasing valuations?

Sure, they exist. But they make up a tiny fraction of all VC-backed companies. I wouldn't make those outliers the base case for your planning.

Big caveat here — I'm sure in 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 of these cases, the time between rounds is extending because the companies in question don't need to raise. They've got their burn under control, they're growing faster than planned, whatever the reason.

But there's also a lot of the other end. Companies cutting spending they'd rather keep. Companies not hiring to save cash. Companies turning to investors for bridge rounds and extensions.

You'd rather not be in the latter category, all things considered. 

So - how long can you make the money you raise tomorrow last?

The battle is over: SAFEs won.

Doesn't matter where you are in the US, startup founders now use SAFEs as the default way to get initial capital into their companies.

In 2018 and 2019, there was a real fight between SAFEs and Convertible Notes as to which instrument would become the default path for early capital.

But since Q1 2020, the SAFE has gained share in all markets while the Note consistently lost ground.

(Caveat - the only place this has been less true is in Biotech startups, but even there the SAFE is well used).

I've heard 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 of objections to SAFEs. Some of them are a bit silly ("founders who use SAFEs don't get the market"), some of them are pretty substantial ("what even are SAFEs under the law?").

But none of them have really mattered. 

If you're a founder raising capital, you need to understand the SAFE and how it works. 

Got many explainers for you, ping em in the comments for direct links.

There is actually a "best week" in VC-backed startups.

It's the week of December 15th.

Over 5% of primary venture rounds are signed in that week, significantly higher than any other single week of the year.

Data here is from US startups that use Carta and are raising priced rounds. It's a combined view for all deals raised 2016–2024. We exclude bridge/extension financings.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗳𝗳

• Week 51 (starting ~Dec 15th) is always the biggest week for signed deals. Probably a combination of wanting to get in-process deals over the line before the holidays hit + culmination of the fall fundraising season.
  
• Weeks 14 and 18 are almost always big weeks as well in late March and late April respectively.
  
• There are basically no deals signed the last week or the first week of each year.
  
• There's a bit of noise in some summers (and macro conditions matter, very few deals in Q2 2020 for instance) but in general deals get done every week, every year.

Big note - this data is based on when the deals are actually 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱. 

I would not advise starting a fundraise on Dec 15th. You'll probably get swamped in the holiday break and have to restart in January anyway. 

Good luck in this final month or so of 2025 fundraising 🙏

#startups #founders #fundraising

For founders - here's how much equity you'll sell to VCs per round:


Seed: 19.5%
Series A: 18%
Series B: 14%
Series C: 10%
Series D: 7.5%

But of course those medians are just the middle of wide distribution ranges. And this data is for software startups only, deep tech companies typically have to sell a little more in the early stages.

𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱

• Dilution is one leg of the 3-leg fundraising stool (dilution, valuation, amount raised). You can't really optimize for all 3 at the same time.
  
• Knowing how much cash you truly need to raise makes everything else much easier. That said, knowing that exact figure is anything but easy.
  
• Excessive dilution matters because a) you as the founder may no longer be incentivized to the right level and b) you may not have enough cap table left for future fundraising needs.
  
• On the other hand, refusing a deal that has slightly high dilution simply because it isn't in the middle of these benchmarks is silly. Above all, don't let the company die.
  
• Deals in major venture markets (SF, NY) will often have more competition on the investor side which can increase leverage for the founder.
  
• Startup valuations are a reflection of the math for dilution and amount raised. They are 𝗻𝗼𝘁 reflections of the actual underlying value of the company in most cases.

Last few weeks for selling equity in 2025 starts now!

Weaving data into brand storytelling for the next generation of company owners.

If you're applying to work with me as the Insights Manager at Carta, use this emoji 🙏 in your initial message so I know you do great research.

Startup data delivered directly to your inbox of choice every Thursday morning:
https://carta.com/subscribe/data-newsletter-sign-up/

Startups did not go from $1 million -> $1 billion of revenue in 2 years...until now.

Cursor (well actually Anysphere, which is the company name even though everyone knows Cursor) raised a massive round at a nearly $30B valuation. The main reason for that eye-popping headline figure was their growth from $1M to $1B in the 2 years since Cursor launched.

What does this mean for everyone else in startups?

• "Great" growth has been redefined. When the top end of the market experiences such a profound change in a short period of time, the trickle down effect of increased expectations hits everyone.
  
• That redefinition explains a lot of the seemingly odd behavior from venture participants lately. Why are they (and by they I mean big funds, usually) so disinterested in companies that are growing well? Because well is not great, and great is higher now.
  
• There's only so much oxygen in startups across many narratives. When one narrative (like AI code creation) gobbles up oxygen to itself, other narratives and sectors will suffer from disinterest. Is this right? No. Does this happen? Yes.
  
• Revenue expansion at this rate completely overwhelms any concerns about margin, profitability, etc. It really doesn't matter in the moment.
  
• Historic revenue run rates + 12x valuation pops in a single calendar year...and very few IPOs to speak of. This dichotomy explains the frenzy of attention on getting retail (or retail-ish) access to the late stage private markets. See Robinhood's latest fund as a clear example.
  
• Cursor is not the whole market 😁 hang in there, founders.

So you’re raising between $500K and $1M for your startup. What’s the right valuation? 

There isn’t one right answer, but the range depends on where you live. 

Benchmarks taken from 3,370 SAFEs signed from June 2024-Sept 2025.

The ranges in the chart looks at the valuation caps on each of the signed SAFEs. The val cap range goes from the 10th percentile at the left to the 90th percentile on the far right.

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀

1. Where you raise money matters. The top 25% or so of Bay Area valuation caps for this amount of money basically don't exist anywhere else.
   
2. There is no national market for startups. The deal you get will be based on the available investor pool and the perceived demand for your business.
   
3. Founders in non-major markets do tend to get diluted more heavily at the beginning than founders in the core VC ecosystems.
   
4. Valuation caps are NOT valuations. Many startups will convert at their first priced rounds below the cap (or at it, which again is not what the investors are hoping for).
   
5. You should care about dilution, for sure. But you should not refuse to take in capital you need just because the dilution isn't what you hoped for. Stay alive first!

#startups #founders

Startup equity is not cash.

Some of you are likely discussing taking a new role at a startup over Thanksgiving dinner this year, which is awesome. 

One big tip: when you’re looking at the compensation in your offer letter, don’t translate the equity into dollars if the company is early stage. 

You should negotiate for a good equity offer but taking a $10K cut in salary for “$10K more in equity” is an inaccurate bargain. 

Gotta account for the time value of cash (that equity is not liquid today) and the potential of the equity to be worth zero (which is…high). 

Negotiate hard. Feel satisfied you’re getting paid what you’re worth. But join this startup for the agency and learning and growth, first and foremost. 

Good luck out there 🙏

New record - 200 startups on Carta were acquired in Q3 2025.

5 things to know about today's M&A environment for startups:

• Clear return to dealmaking after the down period of 2023. There are active buyers in the market now (other startups, Big Tech, and PE shops).
  
• About 50% of acquisitions involve companies in pre-seed or seed stage (so not very far along the journey). Another 25-30% are Series A.
  
• However, Q3 2025 saw a new record for Series B acquisitions as well with 26 companies. So this is not simply an acquihire phenomenon.
  
• Getting acquired 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 that everybody on the cap table made money. 
  
• Yes, AI is playing a bigger role here. At least 30% of acquired companies in 2025 have been AI companies (and the percentage has climbed each quarter).

Good luck on your next deal!

Startup funding round names are officially dead.

Yesterday Wabi announced a $20M pre-seed round led by a16z. Really cool idea (they're creating a way to create, discover, and remix personal mini apps). 

but what is pre-seed doing in that announcement?

Awhile back, Thinking Machines announced a $2 billion seed round at a cool $12B valuation. Pre-product, but not pre-credibility of course, given who Mira Murati is. 

Big question is: does this matter? Who cares what the round is called?

Well, turns out having a shared understanding of stages makes fundraising easier for lots of founders. It allows them to focus on VCs who can realistically invest into their businesses. It allows them to have some semblance of understanding for what metrics those investors will require of them.

We could:

• All agree to just talk about round size instead of name (bucketed in reasonable ways like $1M-$5M, $5M-$10M, etc). Probably won't happen.
  
• Ditch round names in favor of numbers (first institutional round, etc). 
  
• Keep all funding secret and only discuss company shutdowns or exits (...good luck).

All so confusing these days 😬

Anyway go check out Wabi, looks pretty sweet.

And if you want data regularly on what (most people) are raising in VC, subscribe to our newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gNa_Dk-F

Startup pivots are bad, actually.

Interesting take from Ben at Village Global recently arguing that the initial idea is often more important than many investors expect. Even more heretical, he adds that exceptional founders working in the wrong space tend to fail.

(Now some investors might say "the fact they failed proves they weren't exceptional founders" but I think that's far too presumptive)

Which brings us to pivots.

𝟰 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗶𝘃𝗼𝘁𝘀 
from Elad Gil's blog "A Brief Guide To Startup Pivots"

𝟭) 𝗣𝗶𝘃𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹.

Most common, most likely to fail

𝟮) 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁. 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁/𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 (𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺, 𝗧𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵).

Sometimes a single part of the original idea catches on while the rest of the product lags. Should you strip away everything about the original product that isn't working or should you keep the legacy product alive?

𝟯) 𝗟𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 (𝗬𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿, 𝗦𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸).

Something you used to build your original ideas becomes the whole company. Slack is the clearest example (chat functionality inside a video game becoming the big idea). May require resetting the employee base, not easy.

𝟰) 𝗗𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘄 (𝗧𝘄𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝗚𝗢𝗔𝗧).

Same team, totally different thing. Really hard to actually pull off, may be better to shut down and restart as the new entity.

----------

We talk about the pivots that worked and basically ignore the pivots that flopped. Of course companies will need to adjust course as they build, but how far afield from the original idea should founders go? 

While managing founder conflicts, employee morale, investor sentiment...not easy!

Not sure I have the strongest take here beyond saying that pivoting is 100x easier before you take outside investment than it is afterward 😬

The YC deal: $500,000 for 7% of the startup. Is this a good deal?

And yes, I know there are some technical details with the YC deal, it's actually two separate SAFEs, etc. 

But look at the broader data: in 2025, the median equity sold for $500K is indeed 7%.

Meaning the YC deal is very much in line with the market. 

Data below looks at the expected dilution from startups raising on post-money SAFEs so far this year. 

I say expected because if you're raising on SAFEs, you get the money today and you convert the investor into an equity-holder whenever you raise a priced round — which could be tomorrow or 2 years from now.

Big note: most founders do 𝗻𝗼𝘁 do all of these rounds. Do 1, skip all of them, do your own thing!

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀

1. Dilution tends to grow as the amount raised gets bigger. Fairly obvious that you'll sell more the company for $1 million than you would for $100,000.
   
2. The median is useful, but the ranges across all of these stages are pretty wide. Deals get done at different prices for different people (and yes, it is about the people rather than the business at this stage, by and large).
   
3. If you're raising $1 million today from US VCs, expect to sell around 10% of your startup.
   
4. The round names are mostly just my guesses, but they do reflect the kind of investor involved. Angels play below $500K, pre-seed funds from $500K-$2M, and seed funds about $2M. Lots of line crossing and blurring though.
   
5. I often get the question - "Is YC a good deal"? Obviously it depends on your business and what you need, but on a purely economic basis it's right in line with dilution from a large angel round. Not bad!

Getting ahead of two objections:

• Yes, this data is heavily influenced by AI startups and SF startups. Why? Because there are lot more deals happening in SF.
  
• Founders should not refuse to take a deal with higher dilution if it's the only path towards capital they need. Make the deals you must to keep the business alive!

Shout in the comments for a link to our fresh State of Pre-Seed report with tons more data on the earliest venture companies.

Fundraising for AI startups in 2025: real world data from thousands of companies.

The startup world has bifurcated over the past year. Fundraising is slow, grueling, and uncertain — unless you're in the AI sunspot, where the dollars flow freely and the ARR seems to drop from the sky.

Data comes from the aggregated pool of more than 10,000 AI startups using Carta for their cap table platform today. All US companies.

𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗤𝟯 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗼𝗻:

• Total funding
• SAFE dilution
• AI funding share
• Dilution by stage
• Graduation rates
• First hire timelines
• AI funding by stage
• AI funding by sector
• Fundraising timelines
• Seed valuation ranges
• SAFE types and terms
• Founder team dynamics
• Seed valuations by sector
• AI vs non-AI early hire equity
• Series A valuations by sector
• Pre-seed SAFE valuation caps
• Series A / B / C ARR data from Silicon Valley Bank

Data for the founders!

Can share a link to the high-res deck in the comments, shout out for one.

Fundraising for AI Startups

"Startup cofounders must split equity equally" OR "splitting equally is the sign of a weak CEO".

Which side are you on?

Hint: both are silly, of course.

Here are the findings from 9,000+ US founding teams using Carta, all incorporated quite recently:

• 46% of 2-founder teams split equity 50/50 (so a slight majority of teams did not).
  
• Median split for 2-founders teams was 51% to 49%.
  
• Very few (less than 5%) of 2-founder teams split 80/20 or higher.
  
• 3-founder teams only split 33/33/33 about 20% of the time.
  
• Median 3-founder split: 45% to 33% to 20%.

• Only 1 in 10 4-founder teams split equally (25% each).

𝗠𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

1. Clearly you can split equally or unequally, many teams in both camps. Only problem is splitting a certain way without a deep conversation about it.
   
2. At the 4 year mark, there wasn't much difference in the "success ratio" between teams that split unequally vs those that split equally. They lost cofounders at a similar rate, they achieved funding rounds at similar rates, etc. Some minor gaps but nothing really stands out.
   
3. Teams, especially 2-founder teams, are increasingly choosing 50/50 as the default path. Only a third or so of 2-founder teams split equally in 2017 vs 45%+ today.
   
4. Vesting schedules (4-year minimum) are a critical piece of this — but the changes to the private lifecycle of startups have started conversations about extending these.
   
5. Will AI startup with lower capital costs and faster growth affect founder equity? Obviously these new builds may be less dilutive (both in funding and in lower employee counts) so founders could have bigger slices of pie over time.
   
6. Founding teams are waiting longer and longer to hire their first employee - so be ready to work just with your founding group for 1 or 2 or even 3 years.
   
7. Solo founders get to avoid all of these conversation and potentially use extra equity to incentivize key early hires to boot. 

Happy founding. Remember that advice is only selectively useful 😁

#startups #founders #cofounders

Founders - 3 weeks of startup fundraising left in 2025. Here’s where the market stands right now.

Basic benchmarks from the last 6 months of VC deals on Carta:

𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴
• Will happen on SAFEs.
• $1M raised on a $10M post-money cap is the median
• Val cap will rise if you're raising more money

𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗱
• Median = $21M valuation with $4M raised 
• You'll sell 19%-20% of the business

𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔
• Median = $67M valuation with $11M raised 
• You'll sell 18%-20% of the business

𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗕
• Median = $140M valuation with $21M raised 
• You'll sell 12%-16% of the business

𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗖
• Median = $383M valuation with $40M raised 
• You'll sell 8%-12% of the business

𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗗
• Median = $650M valuation with $50M raised 
• You'll sell 6%-8% of the business

YES, these are heavily influenced by AI deals because there are a lot of AI deals. 

YES, these are heavily influenced by SF deals because there are a lot of deals in SF.

Founders outside the main sector and the main market should expect lower valuations.

Not a lot of time left this year to fundraise, get out there 🙏

#startups #fundraising #founders

Why do the AI labs do so many chart crimes?

Messing with the y-axis is the easiest way to make people distrust your results.

It's the most common chart crime and it has a near universal annoyance rate.

(Personally I think there are some instances where starting the y-axis at something other than zero can make sense but...this wasn't one of them).

The other basic thing the Claude folks got wrong here is the bar ordering. Obviously they placed the three model results from their own company together, but it detracts from the ability to understand the relative placement of each model.

Just order them by accuracy %, simple.

Now does any of this truly matter? Maybe not. The results are the results.

But screwing up the graphic automatically introduces other narratives into the debate. 

The point from the Claude team was "look how great our model is compared to the competition".

By adjusting the chart, they allowed folks to say "look how hard the Claude team had to work to make it appear as though their model is far ahead".

Charts = comms, don't muddle the message.

Startup founder in 2021: Look how many ppl work for me. 

Startup founder in 2025: Look how few. 

Normally more funding means more hiring, but these are not normal times.

Startups on Carta (US only) raised 70% more capital in Q2 2025 than they did at the start of 2023. But they hired 23% fewer people.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?

• Funding is being concentrated in fewer companies, which would reduce startup-wide hiring even if the companies receiving funding were hiring "normally" (they aren't, btw).
  
• Founders are 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 to remain lean. This seems like something they would have always done, but it really wasn't. In 2021, the more people working for you the better.
  
• Remaining lean is also optimizing for ARR per FTE (revenue per full-time employee) which is the new hot metric in VC fundraising.
  
• AI allows smaller teams to build / distribute / monetize more product. This is not just an AI question, however - the culture around startups has also shifted.
  
• There is a memetic quality to big tech companies doing more with less. Probably started with the Elon/Twitter example but many such cases today.
  
• Some of these founders lived through the 2021 period of over-hiring and subsequent massive layoffs and they'd really like to avoid that moving forward.

Good for startups (overall) and not so good for startup job seekers 😬

#startups #founders #startupjobs #startuphiring

What percent of Series A startups become 10x winners?

Took a spin through 8,647 US companies on Carta that raised a Series A round from VCs. We split the data by the date of the Series A financing.

Then we looked at valuation. How much has the valuation increased for these companies since they raised that Series A round?

In 50% or so of cases, Series A was about as valuable as they would ever get.

But of course it matters how long they've had to mature into higher valuations. For companies that raised A in 2017, a full 22% of them are at least 10x more valuable today. Pretty solid chunk!

You can also clearly see the impact of the last boom cycle around startups which ended in 2022. So the companies that raised A in 2021 have been much less likely to get to 10x or higher from their (honestly inflated) 2021 valuations.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟳-𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝘀:
• 15% are now 10x more valuable
• 51% are within 2x of the original A valuation

Across all of these years (as of today), there are:

• 97 companies that have grown at least 50x in valuation
• 44 companies that have grown at least 100x in valuation
• 5 that have grown over 500x in valuation

Doesn't mean they have actually exited and returned liquidity to investors, of course. But the massive outliers are out there!

#startups #SeriesA

taplio

Peter Walker's Linkedin Analytics

Peter Walker

Performance ScorePeter Walker's LinkedIn Performance

What is Peter talking about?

Peter Walker's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Peter Walker's Linkedin Analytics

Peter Walker

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Peter Walker's LinkedIn Performance

What is Peter talking about?

Peter Walker's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Peter Walker's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScorePeter Walker's LinkedIn Performance

Peter Walker's Best Posts (last 30 days)