In the vast landscape of Web3 venture capitalists (VCs), which VCs have the best insight? Which VCs have the highest project return rates? Which early-stage VCs offer better cost-effectiveness for ordinary players? Which projects should one consider for investment? Let’s examine these questions through data. This article is based on a piece by Sege (@EvanCrypto17) and organized by Deep Tide TechFlow.
(Background: “Monsters and Demons” — The Ten Major Issues in Cryptocurrency VCs Revealed by Ether.Fi Founder)
(Additional Background: Not Just You Losing Money! All 11 Top Cryptocurrency VCs Have Reported Losses This Year, Struggling to Escape These Six Major Blows)
The output from foreign VCs is higher than that from domestic VCs, with exchange-affiliated VCs lying in between in terms of investment output.
After 48 hours of intense research, here’s a collection of essential data for Web3 players.
Among the many VCs in Web3, which VCs have the best vision? Which VCs have the projects with the highest return rates? Which early-stage VCs should ordinary players invest alongside for better value? Which projects are worth considering? What are the distinctions between domestic and foreign VCs? Do foreign VCs invest in projects with greater potential?
These questions are of utmost concern to retail investors and are also what primary market players (those looking to profit) are most interested in.
In this article, we will present the answers to these questions using the most straightforward data available. All data is sourced from online disclosures, and we have screened a total of 65 VCs, comprising 23 foreign VCs, 34 domestic VCs, and 8 exchange-affiliated VCs.
The results indicate that the best outcome for VC investments is when a token is listed on a major exchange. While we know some projects can be highly profitable without issuing tokens, this is not typically accessible for ordinary players.
Therefore, we provide the following dimensions for judgment:
**Quantitative Metrics:**
– Total number of VC investments
– Number of projects that issued tokens
– Number of projects listed on Binance
– Number of projects listed on OKX
– Number of projects listed on Coinbase
**Listing Success Rates:**
– Binance Listing Rate = Number listed on Binance / Total investments
– OKX Listing Rate = Number listed on OKX / Total investments
– Coinbase Listing Rate = Number listed on Coinbase / Total investments
**Judgment Criteria:**
– Comprehensive Score = 2 * Binance Listing Rate + 1 * OKX Listing Rate + 1 * Coinbase Listing Rate (Binance has the largest volume, so it carries a weight of 2)
– Average Return on Investment (ROI) = 15 * Binance Listing Rate + 10 * OKX Listing Rate + 10 * Coinbase Listing Rate (The ROI assumes an average return of 15x for early investments listed on Binance, 10x for OKX, and 10x for Coinbase; individual project results may vary, and an average is used here).
**Conclusion:**
Based on the difference in comprehensive scores, we classify VCs into five tiers: T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4. The higher the ranking, the better the VC’s insight, thus making it more cost-effective for us to invest alongside these VCs in the primary market.
**VC Tier Rankings:**
– T0 Level VCs: YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), Continue Capital, IOSG Ventures, Bain Capital
– T1 Level VCs: Multicoin, Pantera, 1Confirmation, Smrti Lab, Zonff Partners
– T2 Level VCs: Polychain, ParaFi Capital, Dragonfly, Sequoia China, Delphi Digital, Electric Capital, Mint Ventures, CoinFund
– T3 Level VCs: Framework Ventures, NGC Ventures, SNZ Holding, Coinbase Ventures, OKX Ventures, etc.
– T4 Level VCs: Animoca Brands, GSR, Hashkey Capital, Waterdrip, LD Capital, etc.
**Regional VC Investment Output and Return Rankings:**
Foreign VCs > Exchange-affiliated VCs > Domestic VCs
**T0 Level VCs**
T0 Level VCs are YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), Continue Capital, IOSG Ventures, Bain Capital.
Comprehensive scores > 1, with average ROIs between 8 and 12. By focusing our investments on projects these VCs have previously invested in, we can generally expect substantial outcomes, with a high probability of gaining significant returns from single tokens A7 A8.
Detailed data is shown in the image below:
**T1 Level VCs**
T1 Level VCs include Multicoin, Pantera, 1Confirmation, Smrti Lab, Zonff Partners.
Comprehensive scores range between 0.7 and 1, with average ROIs between 6 and 7.5. By focusing our investments on projects these VCs have previously invested in, the returns can be quite satisfactory, with A6.5 being a good result.
Detailed data is shown in the image below:
**T2 Level VCs**
T2 Level VCs are Polychain, ParaFi Capital, Dragonfly, Sequoia China, Delphi Digital, Electric Capital, Mint Ventures, CoinFund.
Comprehensive scores are between 0.5 and 0.7, with average ROIs between 4 and 6. By focusing our investments on projects these VCs have previously invested in, returns may be somewhat unstable, but there might be opportunities worth exploring.
Detailed data is shown in the image below:
**T3 Level VCs**
T3 Level VCs include Framework Ventures, NGC Ventures, SNZ Holding, Coinbase Ventures, OKX Ventures, etc.
Comprehensive scores range from 0.3 to 0.5, with average ROIs between 2.5 and 4.5. By focusing our investments on projects these VCs have previously invested in, the returns can be somewhat unstable, with lower rates of return.
Detailed data is shown in the image below:
**T4 Level VCs**
T4 Level VCs are Animoca Brands, GSR, Hashkey Capital, Waterdrip, LD Capital, etc.
Comprehensive scores have average ROIs between 0 and 0.3, with average ROIs between 0 and 2.5. By focusing our investments on projects these VCs have previously invested in, the returns appear less optimistic, and the probability of listing is lower.
Detailed data is shown in the image below:
**Bonus Insight**
Projects invested in by Binance and OKX have a slightly higher probability of being listed on their respective exchanges.
The probability of projects invested in by Coinbase being listed on “the big three” is roughly equivalent.
**Summary**
From the data, we find that well-known VCs, such as a16z, Coinbase, Dragonfly, and Polychain, may not hold much reference value for ordinary investors. Some projects leverage the “VC label,” which may simply be a “trap” for retail players.
In our analysis, it is the projects participated in by T0 and T1 level VCs that we should truly focus on and invest in.
Foreign VCs generally achieve higher output than domestic VCs, with exchange-affiliated VCs falling in between. When considering whether a project is worth early investment, we should evaluate the corresponding tier levels of the participating VCs, as the aggregated data provides significant reference value for our primary market investments.
Once again, it is stated that this article only discusses the output ratio of retail players investing alongside VCs, leading to the rankings, and does not involve the overall strength and other aspects of the companies and brands represented by the VCs!
