I agree with @lzminsky that many of our current investment theses have failed, but I still see them as viable if we can execute them more effectively. I believe a future founder will eventually nail a successful version of these theses.
@Zeneca invested in 75+ projects and founders over the past 5 years.
Only <10% of those projects were viable – over 90% were vaporware or fair‑weather.
Angel investing “doesn’t make money. nowhere close to what you can make just trading stuff”.
The appeal is “bragging rights to ‘i was first’” which often comes with large losses.
Founders should not accept money from angels who do not understand this.
I decided to vet angels on crypto fundamentals and daily active usage, favoring those who back projects with real traction (e.g., SERP) over status‑driven investors.
I critiqued the token‑focused investment landscape, observing that most participants only care about short‑term price upside, unlike angel investors who look for 5‑10 year outcomes. I noted that very few early‑stage token projects have solid fundamentals to bet on.
people only look at if this token will go up or not.
these are not angel investors who care for a 5-10yr outcome.
hardly any projects have fundamentals at early stage to bet on
I also suggested a due‑diligence checklist for investors: ask why they are investing, what multiple they target, and how long they expect to hold before exiting.
@SB_Wryta ask them ‘why’ they are investing, what is the multiple and how much time they expect to exit in