I wouldn't recommend VC, they're dumb money. The whole industry is just survivorship bias and fomo. I've worked for 3 VC backed startups and can tell you a lot of the investors are not that bright.
Companies that are reallly first at something difficult, like SpaceX don't get investment because their too hard and risky, but then after a company like SpaceX is successful everyone is looking for the "next SpaceX" so then there is a flood of FOMO money into a ton of companies and you get a Relativity space which gets way over valued then de-valued.
I saw somewhere a stat showing that VC as a whole under performs the market. VC investing is largely based on networking and who you know, so based on networking some VCs get the best deals and have first pick of their investments, so the great companies get their funding rounds filled by those groups, then whoever the first choice VCs didn't invest in is left over for everyone else. You also have an effect where bad ideas might get funding just because they VC has money they have to pick something even if none of the companies are good.
The funds also have fees and stuff that the investors pay, so theirs baked in costs.
And finally, because of time horizons, a lot of the really revolutionary companies get skipped over because they're road to market adoption and scale requires more R&D and is more time and money making the time to see a return longer. The VC wants to cash out fast so companies working in higher barrier to entry markets that may be a 10-15 year horizon get skipped over and ones with lower barriers to entry get funded more easily. But lower barrier to entry is also means more competitors in the space and that means the tech or service becomes a commodity.
There's just a lot of social and behavioral factors with human nature that makes VC more of lottery than other forms of investing.
If you can get into a fund that gets first pick on deal flow, maybe it's great. But the average VC fund I personally would avoid. But remember, todays top VCs are largely just survivorship bias. Their ability to pick good companies isn't distinguishable from random selection. They have one advantage and that is bigger/better network and getting a wider choice of companies to invest in because of their reputation. Doesn't mean they'll make stellar investments, but at least they'll have the opportunity to invest in most. Other funds won't as the better ideas will have been already funded by the better networked and respected funds.
VCs serve a very valuable role and are a catalyst to innovation, but they're the lowest rung of investor. They're no different than the Wall Street Bets redditors. They're the same people.
A lot of them lack real industry knowledge or real stem critical thinking. A lot of trust fund kids who get some liberal arts degree and join some VC company as partner or investor and that's how they get into the VC industry, by being born with money. Not by any other merit or skill. Granted, kudos for trying to fund innovation, it's great for the economy, but I'm not convinced they're great investors like Buffet.
They're average, just like everyone else. But you pay a lot of fees and by its nature the VC sector is emotion driven with FOMO, networking, and survivorship bias playing a huge role, more influence than the actual business or performance merits of the underlying investments.
A lot of trying to read the tea leaves and invest in the 'future'. That's how you get a scooter company valued at a few billion dollars then bankrupt all within ten years.
VCs frankly aren't that smart. They're a few that ask the right questions and have the right due diligence teams, but your average VC is less sophisticated than the average B&I poster on TexAgs.
But I love that they exist and fund tons of innovation. The world is better in my opinion because their willingness to take big risks with their money, even if on average they might underperform, those guys swinging for the unicorns do lead to innovation that improves everyone's life.
