Perhaps it's because 99% of VCs I've talked to who claim (on their website, in person, or otherwise) to focus on the seed stage or early stage, change their mind when you actually go pitch to them. Like asking about users, traction, and so on. If I had those already, I would by definition not be early stage.

True early stage investors focus on technology, team, demos, prototypes, and so on. Probably team more than anything else.

> True early stage investors focus on technology, team, demos, prototypes, and so on. Probably team more than anything else.

I don't think that's true anymore, if you want to get the best valuation/terms for your company you can't go into a meeting with a potential seed/early stage investor without showing some kind of traction.

The bar has been set higher for startups, that is why there is this downward movement in the VC food chain to focus on early stage deals, they are seeing companies with traction and revenue, so they want in earlier before it's too late.

Sure you might be able to raise money just based off of technology, team, demos, prototypes, and so on, but as Jason Calacanis puts it, it's just table stakes: http://calacanis.com/2015/11/02/dont-bring-a-knife-to-a-gun-...

Your definition of "true early stage investors" seems to favor those who would shut out anyone without connections or Ivy-league pedigrees. Maybe investors have found that traction is more important than the founder's biography blurbs. Seems like it's totally reasonable for a company to be in an early stage and have actual users. For those without a golden ticket, this may be the only way to attract investment, since they can't rely on the investor's definition of "team" as a criteria.

Sure, traction is an excellent indicator of a company's potential to succeed. I don't dispute that. And I respect you if you are in investor who is looking for companies with traction. However, in this case though, please don't call yourself "early stage". This wastes everyones' time. You get people pitching to you that don't meet your baseline criteria. Those people waste time with you instead of other truly early-stage investors who are actually likely to open their wallets and throw a few bucks at a couple founders so they can quit their day job and get working on their idea.

Incidentally, I think applying for YC is one of the best ways for those without connections / pedigree. The nature of the application process is such that partners and YC alum reviewers usually look most closely at what the team has actually done, not merely what school they went to or what fancy startups the founders have worked at.

(I no longer work at YC, so I'm just speaking to my time working with 10 batches there.)

This. I have given up on talking to "seed stage" VCs a while ago. Apparently their definition of "early stage" is different than mine - it is a total waste of time.

They want series A numbers at a seed-stage price.

Well, coming up with a cool new name creates new opportunities for quasi-viral articles. But officially, it's about the size of the fund, and the increasing number of funds in that size range.

I think what the article implies is a growth in numbers and in penetration of "finance" circles.

Angel investors, seed funds and accelerators are one thing - they are an element of the start-up eco-system. Until quite recently this was a very small niche, and VC has existed for at least 2-3x as long. (And that's just how we now know it, funding for risky ventures is centuries, if not millennia old)

The article describes an independent "Micro VC" fund with partners and LPs, but another type would be small corporate funds. I worked at Bloomberg Ventures when it was just starting to figure itself out (now known as Bloomberg Beta) - perfect example of a relatively "small", corporate-backed entity that you could also describe as a "Micro VC".

And it's the emergence of these funds, this article highlighting the non-corporate funded ones, that is a noteworthy phenomenon.