I just spoke to Correlation Ventures this week. Great model, and a refreshing change for fundraising. They came in cold after hearing about us from another VC, then we had one phone call which was mostly a friendly chat, and then 3 emails with pretty simple docs and clarifications. They got back to me with a decision in 2 days. After that, they just want a short conversation with a VC co-investor, and another short call with me. Super simple.

I agree that correlation has a great model that makes them easy to work with as a vc or entrepreneur. That said, they cannot exist without other traditional firms leading investments (just as in the public markets, an index fund cannot exist without active fund managers doing the work they have always done).

This is my experience with them as well. Very positive.

Most VCs pass or miss on the big deals anyway.

If this were true, 'most VCs' would be bankrupt, and many probably are.

However, nobody should care about 'most VCs'. You only need one. The good ones do not miss the big deals. There may be evidence that they take a long time on the big deals, but miss them? What evidence do you have?

They absolutely miss many big deals. Think of it this way, there are several dozen well-known Series A firms like Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures, etc. But for any single company like Airbnb or Uber, only one or two or maybe three of those dozens of firms gets to invest. That means for any given unicorn, 90% of the good firms missed it, and probably 99% of all legitimate Series A firms. Sometimes that's because rounds are competitive and a company might have 5 term sheets but can only take one, but that is the exception and not the rule.

VC is an interesting business model because you don't have to get all of the good investments, you just need one or two per fund.

(Source: I'm a VC.)

There's a documentary about it on Netflix: "Something Ventured"

Correlation usually insists on an existing lead as well.