I make Pre-Seed to Series B founders successfully fundraise by helping you build your fundraising operating system. | $350m+ raised with founders. | Follow me for tips on fundraising.

I have spent the last 10 years trying to find the "secret" sauce to making you fundraise for your company.

And you know what?

There's no secret. 

It’s just a matter of having: 

- The right preparation & processes
- A clear and concise narrative & storytelling
- Structured relationships built over a long period 

The real "secret", if there's any at all, is that you need to build a system around your fundraise to make sure you do the proper work.

A system means that allows you to: 

- Efficiently build the right relationships with investors and connectors
- Influence investors that YOU are a good bet
- Take them through your process in an efficient manner 

All the while keeping accountability of you doing the boring but important stuff.

During the $400m+ in venture funding I have been a part of, I was able to meet best-in-class  entrepreneurs. 

Some of these entrepreneurs have gone on to raise $100M+ in fundraising each. ​

All of them possessed operating systems for the fundraises. 

I’ve built such a system for fundraising founders. 

And I can help you build yours. 

But as with all things, getting started, maintaining consistency and keeping accountability is easier said than done.

The founders I have helped with their fundraises have gone on to raise $250M+. 

...And I'm doing all of this with a 100% MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE.

Now, are you serious about building fundraising for your startup? 

Let's make it happen.

(I CAN'T HELP YOU IF YOU HAVE ALREADY STARTED YOUR FUNDRAISE). 

👉🏼 Shoot me a DM, or head over to my featured section & check out our offer.

I'll see you at the top!

Gian Seehra

A paid “intro service” just cold-DM’d me… 


asking if I invest.

I don’t.

And a 10-second look at my profile makes that obvious.

You can see the message down below after I asked why they connected with me. 

This is why you should be careful paying for “VC intros”:

𝟭) 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝟱𝟬𝟬 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀

If they did, they wouldn’t be spraying DMs at random people.

𝟮) 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 “𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘀” 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱

You’re not getting "warm" relationships as much as they pretend. 

They will just spam you out in the hopes someone bites. 

𝟯) 𝗜𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴

Investors can smell mass outreach instantly.

Even if you get a call they will think you are desperate and think less of you. 

-

Think about it:

Someone paid this firm to “open doors”…
…and they’re knocking on mine.

So if you’re raising, do this instead:

1. Build a clean target list (100+ funds)
2. Get real warm paths (operators, founders, experts)
3. Send thoughtful, specific outreach
4. Give more than you take 
5. Only then ask for potential intros 

Stop paying for “intros.”

Because they don't work. 

Instead, pay with effort. With work. 
Just like the top 1% of founders do.

What do you think of "paid for" intros? 

P.S. Some paid for intros actually can work btw, but ~5% of the people doing it are like that. And you have no way of knowing who is good or bad. Most are spamming like this!

Failed 2 fundraises. Then raised $16M. Now I teach founders everything I wish I’d known. | Ex-Octopus Ventures VC | $250M+ raised with founders | DM “RAISE” to chat

In 2018, I met a seed-stage company that I was excited about. 

The founders had: 

1. Previously built an app with 1 million users
2. Now building a high potential company 
3. Already hired amazing people  

I was hooked with the new company's vision. 

And believed that they had the potential to be truly game-changing. 

In fact, I still do... 

On paper, everything looked great. 

They were:

• Experienced founders
• Building a great product
• Targeting a large market
• And a track record of growth

But then it all came crumbling down. 

Why? 

Because we never actually met the CEO... 

3 meetings down and he kept saying he was too busy. 

How could we invest into a company when we hadn’t even met the leader? 

We decided not to waste our time and rejected the company in the end. 

This is why its so important to make sure its always the CEO conducting the first few meetings. 

Even if you think someone else may be better at telling the story.

♻️ Repost is you think this can be helpful to other founders

-- 
P.S. Wondering if pictures like below are useful or not. Yay or nay on them? 

#entrepreneurship #startups #venturecapital

A “3-week raise” is real. It just starts 3 months earlier.

Because the “fast raise” isn't something that just 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗳𝘀 out of thin air...

What it usually looks like in the wild:

1. Over 3–6 months, the market starts leaning in.
2. Multiple "random" signals to investors. 
3. Experts telling them you are one to watch. 
4. Other founders mentioning you. 
5. VCs starting to keep you on track. 

Those investors are watching (even if you don’t realize).

They’ve seen enough cycles to know the pattern:

Great founders execute… repeatedly… over time.

So by the time you “start the raise,” you’re not having to introducing yourself.

But instead just giving them a moment to act. 

RIGHT NOW. 

That’s where speed comes from:

𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆
You’ve been in their orbit long enough that they are starting to believe you can do it. 

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
They've seen you execute so well they know this is the last chance to invest. 

𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲
A few investors don’t want to “wait and see” anymore, so they try to get in early.

Then one thing happens that changes everything:

A credible investor moves first.
A first term sheet (or a clear lead signal) hits the table.

And now the dynamic flips:

Now you're "hot" and everyone wants in. 

That’s how a "3-week raise" actually happens:

Not from waking up one day and “running a process.”

But from months (sometimes years) of compounding execution + investor awareness. 

Things you need to be spending every day doing. 

Now if you want to learn what the 5 mistakes every founder makes thats making them fail their fundraises. 

Comment "MISTAKE" and i'll send it over.

My friend had the perfect CV, yet still got zero jobs. 

And it was due to 1 simple reason: 

My friend had everything going for him: 

1. Incredible track record 
2. High-level roles 
3. Clear results

So he assumed getting a job would be easy.

But after 6–7 months of applying online, he had 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 

He was burning time, burning savings, burning confidence. 

Why did this happen? 

Because he was applying 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘥. 

His resume got buried with 200+ others. 
All trying to do the exact same thing. 

Yet when he decided to get respected people to introduce him to hiring managers... 

Everything changed! 

And he was hired within a month. 

Does that sound familiar to you? 

Because founders do the same thing in fundraising. 

You are: 

1. Cold emailing decks
2. Spamming on linkedin dms
3. Submitting through portals…

And wondering why you’re not getting real meetings.

The truth is because its very much like hiring. 

If you aren't leveraging someone else's social capital via warm intros.

Then your pitch deck gets put at the bottom of the pile. 

So don't be like every founder. 

It's not going to work.

How are you making sure you get enough investor meetings? 

P.S. Wanna learn how to get 100+ warm intros consistently in your funding round? Then DM me "NETWORK" and I'll send you more info.

Venture Studio Architect - I help you design, launch, and grow your company creation studio.

Most innovation programs fail not because of lack of ideas, but because they lack a system for venture creation.

I help innovation leaders in corporations, universities, and economic development organizations build venture studios that scale and deliver. Backed by data, frameworks, and insights from studying over 500 venture studios globally.

As Senior Director of Research & Data at the Venture Studio Forum, I'm building the empirical backbone of the venture studio asset class. VSF is a 501(c)(6) trade association representing 1,500+ members who have built 650+ companies, 11 unicorns, and $48 billion in enterprise value.

My work establishes venture studios as a formal asset class through:

-Asset Class Analysis in partnership with MIT and Harvard, delivering the first institutionally credible research for LPs and institutional investors
-The Venture Studio Index (VSI) — the first open standard and formal definition for venture studios
-Studio Data Platform (2026) providing structured datasets and benchmarks for researchers and operators
-State of the Studio Report (2026) tracking trends, performance, and sector segmentation
-Policy recommendations for state and federal innovation agencies

Concurrently, as Partner and Head of Insights at 9point8 Collective, I translate this research into practice. We've designed and launched 25+ venture studios. Our approach builds clarity, alignment, and momentum at the intersection of innovation, capital, and impact.

I've spent 20+ years at the intersection of innovation, strategy, and venture building. I launched NCR's first internal accelerator (generating $90M from its first cohort), secured 27+ patents across AI and fintech, and developed investment frameworks that institutional investors now use to allocate capital into the studio model.

Speaking & Workshops: I deliver keynotes and workshops on designing high-performing venture studios, the future of venture creation ecosystems, and turning knowledge engines into commercial engines.

🎤 Book me to speak: VentureStudioForum.org/speaking
 📊 Learn from our research: newsletter.venturestudioforum.org
 🌍 Join the community: venturestudioforum.org
 💼 Work with us: 9point8collective.com

Matthew Burris

Venture Studios have a 100x advantage over accelerators and venture funds.

Studios vs. accelerators vs. VC vs. incubators

One of the simplest ways to compare them? Hands-on support.

Venture capital: maybe 30 minutes per week.

Accelerators: 1–2 hours a week. Mostly group sessions and some limited 1:1.

Incubators: slightly less. Some education, co-working space, network access. But very little operational involvement.

Venture studio: 20 to 100+ hours a week of hands-on execution.
Real operators. Half a person to an entire team building the business with you.

The range of support isn't even close.

P.S. Follow for more venture studio insights

I help innovation leaders build venture studios | Senior Director, Research & Data @ Venture Studio Forum | Partner, Head of Insights @ 9point8 Collective | Keynote Speaker | Trusted by 500+ Studios

Model Comparison.pdf

Venture studios aren’t VC

So why should we try to fit them inside VC frameworks?

The carousel below explains why this is the case (and breaks down an alternative model for venture studios instead).

For more on studio structures, capital efficiency, and the case for new frameworks for venture studios… 

DM/Comment “VSF” to join the venture studio forum (a community for the venture studio ecosystem)

Venture Studios Aren’t  VC Funds.pdf

I've been quiet for about a month. Claude code got me. I had to stop talking and start building.

For the last several weeks, our team at 9point8 has gone deep into Claude Code. Not as a curiosity. Not as an experiment. As a serious exploration of what AI automation can do for venture studio research, operations, and ecosystem development.

I'll be honest. I came into this with a healthy skepticism. I've spent enough time in manufacturing, engineering, and with machine learning to know that most technology hype collapses the moment it meets operational reality. The antidote to hype is always the same: test the claim against what it actually costs, what it actually produces, and whether the economics survive contact with the real world.

So we tested it.

What we found changed how I think about what's possible for this industry. Not in the vague, hand-wavy "AI will change everything" sense. In the specific, measurable, "here is what it produced and here is what it cost" sense.

Over the coming weeks, I'm going to share what we've been building, what worked, what didn't, and what it means for venture studios, for the 9point8 Collective, for the Venture Studio Forum, and for anyone trying to make informed decisions in this space.

The fundamental challenge for venture studios has always been a data problem. The people making decisions about studios, whether they're operators, investors, universities, corporates, or economic development organizations, don't have the evidence base they need. The data is scattered, incomplete, and inconsistent. 

We think we've found a way to start fixing that. At a speed and cost that would have been inconceivable six months ago.

More soon.

What does claude code mean for venture studios?

Corporate Venture Studios are surprisingly common in major corporations. 

Around a third of corporations with Corporate Venture Capital also have a Venture Studio.

Both serve different purposes, and they're distinct operationally, strategically, and financially.

Corporate VC is about gaining strategic access to an external startup, one that the corporation might one day acquire, partner with, or monitor closely.

A Venture Studio works differently, Instead of buying in, you’re building from the ground up.

Usually in a category where the corporation already has deep industry knowledge.

Two powerful tools, but useful for very different parts of the corporate growth strategy.

For more in depth comparison, check the carousel below

P.S. Follow for more venture studio insights

CVS vs. CVC.pdf

6 Common venture studio design mistakes

1. Incorporating Fund Too Soon
2. Picking the Wrong Follow-on Capital
3. Picking the Wrong Founder Archetype
4. Raising Capital Too Early
5. Designing Something Too Fancy
6. Pitching the Model Instead of Yourself

For more in depth breakdown, check the carousel below

The more focused you are early, the better your odds.

P.S. Follow for more venture studio insights

6 Common Mistakes Venture Studios Make Too Early.pdf

I'll be moderating at the Virtual VC Conf on March 31. Topic: “The Cap Table Problem: Do Venture Studios Make Startups Uninvestable for VCs?”  Join me and register free here:  https://vcconf.com?32

9Point8 Collective's Matt Burris moderates a venture studio panel on the cap table problem

We're hosting a live Venture Studio 101 with open AMA.

If you've ever confused a studio with an accelerator, incubator, or VC fund — this is the session that fixes that.

I'm sitting down with JT Benton for the kickoff of the Venture Studio Forum's University Speaker Series to break down:

→ The formal definition of a venture studio and the three roles every studio must play 
→ How studios actually differ from accelerators, incubators, and funds 
→ Why definitional clarity is make-or-break for institutions evaluating or building studios 
→ What organizations get wrong when they try to adopt the model

45 minutes. Interview, open Q&A, real discussion. Come with questions.
📅 Thursday, March 19 · 12:00 PM ET 📍 Circle - Link in comments

Session 1 of 5, running monthly March through July.

taplio

The Battle

Gian Seehra

Matthew Burris

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreGian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMatthew Burris's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Gian Seehra

Matthew Burris

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

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);}Gian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMatthew Burris's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreGian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance