Riley Kaminer ✍️

PSA: Your old posts are allowed to disagree with your new ones.

You’re allowed to learn things.

(Wild concept, I know.)

But if you’ve changed your mind, explain what caused the changing.

Was there new evidence?
Did a market condition shift?
Did you realize your original argument was a bit… wobbly?

There’s a useful post in that.

And it doesn’t need to start with “Everything I thought I knew was WRONG!”

Unless everything actually was. In which case, fair enough.

Just explain the old view, what challenged it, and what you now think differently.

For a fund manager, that gives a reader a glimpse of something a polished thesis statement can’t always show:

How you update your thinking.

Before the year ends, have a look through your old posts.
Find one opinion you would qualify, revise, or cheerfully throw out of the window.

Then write the update.

It might be more interesting than another set of predictions for next year.

–––––

What have you changed your mind about in 2026, and what persuaded you?

Unique funds in the wild…

A great year for venture can be a terrible year for most venture managers.

There’s no contradiction here.

According to PitchBook and NVCA, firms raising their fourth fund or later captured 88.2% of US VC fundraising dollars through Q3 2026.

First-time funds took around 4.5%.

Brutal.

If you’re an emerging manager, the phrase “venture is booming” probably feels like salt in the wound.

But facts are facts. And you can complain or you can improve.

Specifically, improve your story.

Of all the funds that CAN exist, why should YOURS be one of the ones that makes it?

Answering that question (not with vague generalities, but with specific and interesting prose) is a way of telling your story to your strategic advantage.

• What do you understand that a larger fund might overlook?
• What do you deliberately leave alone?
• Which opportunities fit your size?

Word of warning: “small” isn’t a thesis.
And neither is “hungry.”

These are both words that apply to hamsters.

The useful story is why your particular approach makes sense, what evidence supports it, how you make decisions, how you think differently to others, and all that fun human-y stuff.

Content has explanatory power that goes before you.

It won’t magic away a difficult market. But it can certainly help your audience understand your fund in the qualitative, not simply quantitative, dimension.

–––––

What’s one advantage of being a smaller manager that deserves a better explanation?

Write down the strongest objection to your next post.

If it’s better than the post…

Congratulations.

You’ve found your next draft.

The blank page has an irritating habit of knowing when you’re bluffing.

Or is that just me?