Yoram Wijngaarde

1 critical mistake we see after working with 300+ companies on equity structures. Founders undervalue sweat equity contributions. Here are 25 key points about structuring sweat equity properly: 1. Cliff periods prevent immediate vesting 2. Professional valuation reduces disputes 3. Regular equity audits ensure compliance 4. Equity pools should account for future hires 5. Transfer restrictions maintain company control 6. Fair market value determines tax obligations 7. Anti-dilution provisions protect early contributors 8. Future dilution impacts long-term equity value 9. Valuation methods need independent verification 10. Legal frameworks vary significantly across countries 11. Vesting protects against immediate equity claims 12. Market rates for similar services provide benchmarks 13. Performance milestones can trigger additional equity 14. Board approval often required for sweat equity grants 15. Tax treatment differs between countries and structures 16. Valuation requires assessing contributor's time investment 17. Documentation must comply with local securities laws 18. Non-monetary contributions include time, skills, or networks 19. U.S. uses equity for services with specific tax implications 20. Pre-money company valuation affects equity percentages 21. Exit clauses define what happens when contributors leave 22. Vesting schedules protect companies from early departures 23. U.K. issues sweat equity shares with tax-advantaged EMI options 24. France doesn't create capital but grants profit shares and voting rights 25. Sweat equity represents economic value of work exchanged for company shares We've seen companies lose key contributors because they structured sweat equity incorrectly. The cost of getting it wrong exceeds the investment in getting it right.

2

Series A used to fund potential. Today it funds proof. Series A is where a company’s substance becomes visible. But it’s not only about revenue alone, especially in deep tech. There must be clear evidence of real demand and product-market fit: customers testing, integrating, and paying. The team must extend beyond the founders, as both technical and strong commercial leadership is essential at this stage. Business models need to demonstrate how margins scale in practice, not just in Excel. The fundamentals are what matter. Enjoyed sharing thoughts with Sofia Chesnokova from Tech Funding News on how the bar for Series A in Europe has shifted. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dbxc5Zhf

67

1 commentaar

Why M&A Expansion Fails Without a Shared Customer Base When a company acquires another to expand its product portfolio, the first question should be: “Do we serve the same customer?” Too often, companies chase shiny opportunities—new markets, cool tech, or hot trends—only to realize after closing that the products don’t fit together because they don’t solve problems for the same customer. Here’s why alignment matters: Cross-Selling Becomes Natural If your products serve the same customer, your sales team can bundle solutions and grow revenue faster. Without overlap, you’re building two separate go-to-market machines—double the cost, half the impact. Integration Runs Smoother Shared customers mean shared data, processes, and success metrics. Misaligned customers lead to friction, complex systems, and stalled integration. Stronger Value Creation M&A works best when 1 + 1 = 3. Serving the same customer unlocks synergy: more wallet share, deeper relationships, and higher retention. Pro Tip: Before any deal, map out your ideal customer profile (ICP). If there’s little overlap, it’s not just a product expansion—it’s a strategic shift. M&A isn’t just about buying growth. It’s about buying the right growth. What’s your take—should product expansion always target the same customer, or is there room for diversification? #MergersAndAcquisitions #CorporateDevelopment

5

Everybody is replaceable, empower your team! As private equity investors, we have seen many CEOs and management teams over the years. Top executives have an impossible job these days, being overwhelmed with information and decision processes that are accelerating due to technology. Many of them are drowning in daily operations, stuck in the hamster wheel. As a result, they can no longer do what they are paid for: to lead and make important decisions! This applies to large corporations as well as small businesses. If you are in the same situation, the following 10 rules will help you become the leader you always wanted to be. 1️⃣ Reward ownership, not obedience! Some people will grow when given this kind freedom, others won’t. They may have to leave. 2️⃣ Make leadership a prerequisite for promotions! You want more leaders on your team, not fewer. Remember, your goal is to free up as much time as possible for the big decisions. 3️⃣ Give decision-making authority along with responsibility! When you give team members more reponsibility and they deliver strong results, they earn your trust. You can give them even more. 4️⃣ Step back from operational decisions! When your team has earned your trust, you don’t even have to join operational decision meetings anymore. 5️⃣ Define measurable outcomes, not tasks! By training your team to think about outcomes instead of tasks, you empower them to come up with their own solutions and ways of problem solving. 6️⃣ Demand solutions, not problem descriptions! You want your team to be creative and solution-oriented. It might be challenging at first, but in the long run, everyone benefits. 7️⃣ Schedule weekly results reviews, not status meetings! No endless talk, no explanations. Go through project lists, define goals and discuss results. 8️⃣ Require justification for every decision! This helps you understand the thought process of your team members. At the same time, they are forced to think things through before presenting to you. 9️⃣ Eliminate your signature from routine decisions! If you truly want to empower your team, you have to demonstrate trust. If you don’t feel comfortable, you either don’t have the right team—or you’re not ready to lead. 🔟 Stop giving instant answers to every question! You want your team to come up with solutions, so stop interfering whenever it is not necessary. Let them think for themselves. In essence: Leadership delivers results without you, while (micro)management needs you for everything. The choice is yours. ♻️ Please share ➕ Follow me ➡️ Get in touch

12

2 commentaren

Peter Thiel on working with people who have different political views Eric Weinstein was a Managing Director at Thiel Capital. Thiel is asked why he would hire someone so vocal about political ideas he doesn’t agree with (e.g. supporting Bernie Sanders). Thiel responds: “Well, I’m interested in ideas always… I think we need to find new ideas and new ways of approaching the world, and Eric is an absolutely first-rate heterodox thinker.” Thiel continues: “I think all of our politics are somewhat eclectic and complex. Eric is more on the left; I’m more on the right. But we’re both interested in ideas and figuring out how to make sense of our world. And that unites us.” Thiel is surprised at how unusual this is: “Most of my peers in Silicon Valley think the ideas are more set — we know all the right answers, and it’s inefficient or a waste of time to be exploring outside of that. But the substantive question you have to ask is, ‘Are the ideas right or should we have more explorations?’” He gives climate change as an example: “There’s the view that we know it’s happening and it’s a runaway problem. We can’t even pause to think about it because we know all these things, and we just have to focus all of our energy on solving it. If those things are true, then that might be reasonable. If they’re not entirely true — maybe it’s more methane than carbon dioxide, in which case eating steak is worse than driving a car — then we need to have much more of a debate.” Theil concludes: “The kind of question that’s very hard and that you have to make a judgement on is: ‘Do we more or less have the truth about everything?’ My view is that we’re really far off. But a lot of my peers think that we’re kind of at the end of history and have figured everything out. They think that weird and interesting ideas are just wrong and a waste of time. That’s their bias. Mine’s the opposite.” Video source: The Rubin Report (2018)

5

1 commentaar

Great conversation with Zoe van den Bol at Alpha Partners about why we started Renegade and what we're seeing in the market right now. One thing that came up: founders don't always have the clearest view of their own pricing or value delivery. We've started spending way more time talking directly to customers during diligence to understand real usage patterns and budget allocation. The best companies we see have customers who can articulate exactly why the product matters to their business. That clarity usually translates to stronger retention and expansion over time. Always energizing to talk with other investors about what actually moves the needle for startups trying to scale.

22

2 commentaren

Looking forward to the upcoming engagement with the Dutch #deeptech ecosystem. We aim to bring together startups from universities and research institutes across the Netherlands and a curated list of corporate venture capital units. Focus will be on energy, quantum/compute, semiconductors and more. Excited to work with Honda Xcelerator Ventures Samsung Ventures and ASMLto make this possible. Alix Brunet Nazir thanks for all your hard work in putting this together🚀👏

17

1 commentaar

As Sifted’s editorial director John Thornhill points out, Big US Tech is increasingly raiding Europe’s AI talent. We experienced this firsthand just last month. A startup we invested in—with both a European and an American founder—received an acquisition offer from a major tech company only three weeks after launching. Fortunately, the founders turned it down because they truly believe in what they’re building, but the whole process brought up a lot of questions and created plenty of stress. My takeaway: having a strong sense of purpose as a founder really helps you stay focused when tough decisions come your way. This is why at Decelera we only work with #purposedriven founders. Curious to hear how others are navigating this dynamic.

31

3 commentaren

This is a useful website for teams thinking about technology in private markets. It maps out a wide range of tech tools used by investors and managers, and lets you slice the ecosystem in a few helpful ways: 1️⃣ By function / sub-sector Accounting, CRM, portfolio management, data, reporting, and more. 2️⃣ By client usage You can see which tools different firms are using. (Heavily U.S. and U.K. focused, but still indicative.) 3️⃣ Latest product updates A simple way to stay on top of new releases and feature updates from vendors. For anyone trying to understand the private markets tech landscape, it’s a great reference point. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eiRrJ2Vb

8

One can debate individual sector/stock dynamics but in the space of a few weeks/months, there have been relentless upgrades to ASML, a better outlook for Airbus, and emerging optimism in LVMH. This matters for sentiment and of course, given their market cap, the index. Active fund flows remain positive for Europe but what’s interesting also is that the UBS futures desk has noted rotation into Europe out of US markets over the last number of weeks in material size; this could be defensive in nature -seeking refuge from Government shutdown concerns, a murky corporate credit environment, and of course, the lofty valuation differential.

1

At our recent LP Advisory Council meeting, LPs asked about headlines claiming AI is undermining SaaS. Our view is that the two are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. We are bullish on AI, and we believe certain SaaS leaders (with systems of record/action, first-party data and data rights, network effects, ambitious AI roadmaps, etc.) are well-positioned to capitalize on the agentic AI opportunity. There are multiple reasons for this. To start, consider what’s happening today with SaaS. The median company in the SEG SaaS Index grew 13% in Q2 while doubling its EBITDA margin year over year, with a top quartile growth rate above 20%. SaaS accounts for only 25% of overall software revenue in 2025, according to Gartner, so secular growth from on-premise to SaaS migrations should continue for years. Notably, this growth largely comes before many SaaS firms monetize a new wave of agents. Meanwhile, small AI startups with little revenue are burning cash and trying to sell. At the other end of the spectrum, Klarna’s much-hyped move to replace Salesforce with AI proved overstated; the CEO later said he was “tremendously embarrassed” by the fallout. SaaS pessimists might ask themselves: Has any large enterprise successfully replaced SaaS systems of record with an LLM? Rather than the AI-SaaS story being one of complete disruption, I believe it’s moving in waves, not unlike how businesses have historically incorporated new technologies:  ● Wave 1 (2023): “Get me some AI so we’re not left out” (a reprise of 1996’s “build a web page and we’ll figure it out later”). ● Wave 2 (2024-mid 2025): “Show me the budget and ROI. Also, why do we need an expensive AI model over a cheap one?” ● Wave 3 (late 2025): "I need enterprise-grade AI that integrates seamlessly, delivers measurable results and won’t disrupt core ops with experimental tools." We can’t say for sure what will happen next, but we do know how software brings value to the enterprise. SaaS is more than software code; it’s digital business intelligence using code to express that intelligence. That takes massive data sets and business experience brought to bear on enterprise functions, at scale and over time. It’s about executing tasks efficiently today, then innovating new tasks over time. For these reasons, we see a supercharged future of AI-enabled enterprise software that enhances productivity and innovation in dramatic ways. That future is less about ever-larger foundation models or narrow AI startups that complicate the stack. Instead, we see integrated software systems that orchestrate digital services to accelerate complex tasks, with agents as the 2026 step-function. AI is a massive force multiplier in that equation, but not a radical disruptor. At Thoma Bravo, we welcome the AI-SaaS conversation. We’re healthily paranoid as part of our mindset. But evidence, history, and business logic suggest that the AI revolution is set to accelerate SaaS value and growth, not undermine it.

1.188

64 commentaren

Growth that depends on talent is vulnerable. Growth supported by system is durable. Private equity environments demand commercial engines that can be tuned, measured, and scaled through compressed timelines. My colleague John van Berkum outlines how Strategic RevOps strengthens that foundation: https://lnkd.in/e4QDQq7W

1

Every founder we invest in signs an Impact Pact. Written into our investment documents. Legally binding. Not as marketing. As requirement. Most impact funds talk about doing good. We structure it into every deal. The concept is simple: paying it forward. We share access to capital with founders the traditional VC ecosystem overlooks. In return, we expect our founders to pay it forward in three areas: Wealth sharing: How are you distributing ownership beyond the executive team? In 2024, our portfolio generated over $400 million in wealth creation—$342 million for BIPOC and women founders, plus $65 million in employee equity. Supplier diversity: How much spending goes to companies founded by people of color or women? Our portfolio directed $9 million to diverse suppliers last year—30% BIPOC-owned, 35% women-owned. Diversity goals: Not quotas. Intentionality. 92% of our founders are BIPOC. 81% of their employees are BIPOC. 77% of the $39.7 million in compensation went to BIPOC team members. Here's what makes this different: It's legally binding. Not in a deck. In the documents we both sign. It's specific. No vague language. Measurable commitments. It compounds. Year over year, these numbers grow because the structure demands it. The question I always get: "Does this work? Or is it virtue signaling?" Fair question. Here's the data: Our portfolio created 436 jobs in 2024 — a 48% compound annual growth rate since 2021. These aren't just any jobs. They're pathways to wealth in communities excluded from venture-backed opportunity. The paying-it-forward model creates a multiplier effect. When our founders prioritize diverse suppliers, those suppliers gain revenue and credibility that help them win more business. When our founders build inclusive teams, they tap talent pools competitors ignore. When our founders share equity broadly, retention improves and alignment deepens. Each company becomes a node in a network of shared access—not just a single investment, but a catalyst for ecosystem-wide change. Why structure impact this way? Because impact that isn't measured doesn't compound. When you invest in a founder, you're not just buying equity in one company. You're investing in their commitment to pay it forward — through the vendors they choose, the teams they build, the wealth they share. The Impact Pact ensures impact is intentional, measurable, and compounding. Returns are not concessionary. Our current Fund I: 34.8% gross IRR. 1.75x return multiple. More than two times above the median for comparable VC funds. The Impact Pact isn't altruism. It's a structured method for paying forward the access we provide and capturing the returns that come when overlooked founders get their shot. Fund II is open with the Impact Pact built into every deal. Same structure. Same accountability. Same thesis: that paying it forward isn't charity. It's alpha. If you're an LP who believes in compounding returns and compounding impact, let's talk.

68

34 commentaren

Deep tech in the Netherlands now accounts for 35% of all Dutch tech funding, with investment levels holding steady at €1.1 billion. The scale-up ratio has doubled since 2019 (17% to 35%) It's an indicator of an ecosystem that has matured past the experimental phase. → 1,342 deep tech ventures → 104 scaleups (39% of all Dutch scaleups) → 15 grownups (39% of all grownups)   The compute thesis is particularly striking. The Netherlands ranks #3 in Europe by total investment in the future of computing and #4 by company count, with €846 million deployed. Over 100 companies operate in this category; 13 have scaled beyond €10 million in VC funding. But here's what the numbers don't capture: The Netherlands produces 85% of the technology used in global chip manufacturing. Between 2019 and 2024, over 80% of Dutch compute investment flowed into semiconductors.   Quantum is following a similar trajectory. — VC investment jumped from €15M (2023) to €40M (2024) — €615M committed through Quantum Delta NL Zoom in further and you get Brainport Eindhoven; the highest patent-per-inhabitant rate in the EU. The entire EUV lithography supply chain is within 50 kilometers. ASML, NXP Semiconductors, SMART Photonics, Axelera AI—all nodes in an integrated industrial fabric. The gap between deep tech and non-deep tech investment is narrowing. The capital is starting to reflect what the engineering base has quietly built over decades.   Credit: State of Dutch Tech Report and FoC 2025 by Techleap   Follow us at APEX Ventures and subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive content on groundbreaking Deep Tech startups:   🔗 https://bit.ly/45zbRww

191

20 commentaren

We at Nauta follow a resilient, non-fragile investment thesis. How? We aim at maximising the Expected Enterprise Value at Exit of our portfolio companies. For that, we invest in great potential, capital-efficient companies that always strive for the Maximum Sustainable Growth (MSG). We analyse sectors, companies, and business models in detail and with patience to understand the probability of outsized success and the probability of survival. Afterwards, we work tirelessly to improve both probabilities in our portfolio companies.   Why do we follow this strategy? In venture capital, surviving is winning. To survive the inescapable Power Law in the long term, VC investors must focus on both the probability of outsized success and the probability of survival of their portfolio companies. This strategy better aligns all the main stakeholders in VC: fund managers, LPs, founders, and employees. We encourage our team and portfolio to adhere to the more economically sustainable model we believe Venture Capital should be.   I expand on the above and suggest how to maximise your company's growth sustainably in a blog post on Nauta's website (find the link in the comments). Any feedback is welcome.   #Nautawisdom #weareNauta #innovationbringsprogress

61

7 commentaren

The first class of the Beyond Venture VC Training Program is today at 6PM WAT live on Zoom. (Recording will be made available right after class). Today’s class is focused on one of the most misunderstood parts of venture capital: VC Fund Economics. We’ll be breaking down: • How VC funds are actually structured • What “2 and 20” really means • Management fees vs deployed capital • Carried interest (carry) and GP economics • LPs, GPs, fund lifespan, and capital flows • How returns are distributed in real VC funds • Why a $100M fund doesn’t actually invest $100M into startups • Gross vs Net Returns, MOIC, and IRR explained simply We’ll simplify how institutional venture capital actually works in practice and how funds really make money. If you want to understand venture capital properly, whether as a founder, aspiring VC, operator, angel investor, lawyer, finance professional, or simply someone curious about the industry, this will be valuable. It’s not too late to register. Use the form below. See you at 6PM WAT. https://lnkd.in/d5mStkJ6

5