Are you seeing good venture capital or "pseudo-venture capital"? Placeholder founder points directly to public ignorance.

In the bearish market conditions of the past six months, many have blamed venture capital (VC) firms as the culprits. They argue that VCs have invested too much in infrastructure projects with high valuations and no practical applications, resulting in tokens being unlocked without any underlying value. This irresponsible behavior is believed to have worsened the market. This trend can perhaps be observed from the listing trends on Binance. In June of this year, Binance was criticized by the community for continuously listing tokens backed by high valuation VCs. However, recently, Binance has listed numerous TON blockchain-related and meme tokens, indicating a shift in market preferences towards certain types of cryptocurrencies.

Rebranding Venture Capital: Quality VC Firms Don't Beg for Attention on Twitter

Despite the general disdain towards venture capital (VC) firms in the community, viewed as merely painting a rosy picture for secondary market buyers, renowned VC firm Placeholder's co-founder Chris Burniske steps up to redeem the reputation of VC firms. He points out that what the community often sees as "VC" on social media platforms like Twitter is mostly "fake VC," as many truly high-quality VC firms in the cryptocurrency industry are not active on Twitter and other social platforms.

So, what defines a quality VC firm? According to Burniske, a quality VC firm allows startups to innovate without taking on debt or needing to fund themselves. They help startups progress in terms of background, skills, or experience.

He also emphasizes that the real issue lies in how quality VC firms are often misrepresented by fake ones. These fake VCs are solely interested in entering the private market and speeding up liquidity, offering no substantial help to startups, but rather focusing on maximizing their own profits. Burniske firmly urges the public not to confuse the two.

Burniske noted that the startups do not respect what he calls fake VCs, and they often struggle to sustain their operations over the long term, lacking any real influence, as they do not provide any value or even have a negative impact.

KOLs Stir Emotions, VCs May Be Bad But Not as Bad as They Portray

However, the community often finds it challenging to access such industry insights on Twitter, leading them to conflate quality VC firms with fake ones, blaming them for market disruptions.

Burniske states, "Blaming VCs is very typical and shows a lack of understanding of quality VC, often incited by those deliberately misleading the audience."

The author agrees with this perspective. During the market downturn in June, many Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) did indeed use sensational language on Twitter to accuse VC firms. However, the author believes that things are not entirely skewed towards one extreme. While VC firms in a broad sense have indeed caused significant issues in the market, industry progress also relies on these firms providing resources to early-stage startups. Those KOLs who push the crowd to extremes are more or less playing on people's emotions.

Moreover, examples like a16z and other VC firms, with their crypto accelerators, not only provide funding but also offer technical and operational support. Perhaps the trend of "blaming VCs" has brought positive impacts to the industry, gradually phasing out poor-quality VCs focused solely on speculation.