Angela Strange

Three years ago, we launched Wisdom Ventures with a clear intention to support founders building at the intersection of well-being, human connection, and transformative tech. Since then, we’ve made 37 investments from our oversubscribed "minimum viable" $10M Fund I, backing early-stage companies in physical and mental wellbeing, women’s health, ethical AI, and human connection-centered innovation. We’ve always known we are on to something—what we didn’t expect was how quickly the data would back it up. Recent industry benchmarks show that most 2022-vintage emerging funds are experiencing the usual J-curve dip. In contrast, Wisdom Ventures is showing strong early performance: 📈 Net IRR (internal rate of return): >10% 📊 MOIC (multiple on invested capital): ~2x* ⏰ Median investment age: 18 months 💥 ....and # of our companies have a diverse founder by gender, race, or sexual orientation: 75% As we get ready to make our 38th and final investment out of Fund I and start deploying out of our significantly larger Fund II (first close May 1st), we’re filled with gratitude—for our founders, our LPs, our early supporters, our early believers, and this growing movement toward a more conscious, connected future, fueled by innovation from the ❤️ *Based on most current reports **Not in photo: Our fantastic operating partner, Zoe Rogers #WisdomVentures #ImpactInvesting #ConsciousTech #Wellbeing #AIForGood #FutureOfWork #VentureCapital

255

55 Comments

I’m thrilled to announce defy.vc’s investment in Birches Health as part of their $20M combined Seed and Series A funding round, alongside incredible partners like AlleyCorp, General Catalyst, Will Ventures, and others. As someone deeply passionate about backing companies that tackle important problems for our society, I couldn’t be more excited about what Birches is building—a national virtual clinic dedicated to treating gambling addiction and related behavioral disorders like gaming, sex, porn, and internet addictions. What excites me most is Birches’ innovative health assurance model: proactive, accessible, and affordable care that’s evidence-based and delivered right at home. With the explosion of legal sports betting—think nearly $1.5 billion wagered on this year’s Super Bowl alone—we’re staring down a looming public health emergency. Traditional options like hotlines or generic therapy fall short for this high-acuity issue, but Birches changes that by offering specialized therapy from trained clinicians, multimodal treatment, and peer support, all covered by major insurers like United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, and Blue Cross Blue Shield. It’s available in all 50 states, breaking down geographical and financial barriers that have left so many without help. The impact is already profound: 96% of patients report an improved quality of life, and 94% give Birches a 5/5 rating. By partnering with state governments, payors, and policymakers, Birches is pushing gambling addiction into the spotlight of behavioral health conversations, where it’s been neglected for too long—often leading to shame, worsened outcomes, and higher suicidality risks. This funding will supercharge their growth: expanding the provider network, boosting clinical excellence, scaling infrastructure, and deepening insurance and state partnerships to meet surging demand. Very excited to partner with Elliott Rapaport and the entire Birches team! See more about our POV in the blog post linked in the comments. #GamblingAddiction #BehavioralHealth #HealthTech #VentureCapital #Innovation

159

10 Comments

“We’ll support you.” It’s the most misunderstood sentence in venture. Founders hear safety. Investors often mean optionality. Support can mean different things. Emotional support. Encouragement in tough quarters. Strategic support. Intros. Advice. Pattern recognition. Signaling support. Joining the next round to calm the market. Financial support. Writing the next check when things are hard. Only one truly keeps a company alive. Capital. Everything else helps. But when runway shortens, only one form of support extends it. The mistake founders make is assuming all four are the same. They aren’t. Before you take capital, clarify the definition. When you say “support,” what exactly does that mean here? Thoughts? NUK! #venturecapital #founders #startups

26

5 Comments

I had the opportunity to speak to the CEOs of the startups funded by Shift4Good, which is investing in sustainable transportation. In full disclosure, I chair their impact committee. I argued that firms should think about scaling deep (building stronger relationships in existing communities), rather than simply thinking about scaling fast (wide geographical spread). Research by Suntae Kim and Anna Kim shows that scaling deep can build resilient organizations and communities. The standard Silicon Valley orthodoxy is to scale up and fast, which arises often because of investor pressures. Many people do not question this orthodoxy, and yet it comes at a cost. There are numerous firms that sit in a graveyard of companies that scaled too fast and failed. I could sense the skepticism from many of the CEOs. Yet, one CEO and cofounder, Sriram Kannan, of Routematic agreed with me. I had the privilege to talk to him again and he was able to articulate so clearly how the scaling deep model works, partly by contrasting how scaling deep model of Routematic contrasts to the scaling up model of Uber. The fundamental principles of scaling deep are: 1. Grow organically from profits, not from investor cash 2. Master one market before opening up others 3. Focus on relationships, not transactions I think my biggest epiphany was that scaling deep does not mean slow growth or weak profits. Routematic has been able to achieve 8-10% month-over-month growth in revenues and has largely been profitable since it began offering its transportation services. Uber took almost 15 years to be profitable. I captured these ideas in the Forbes article I posted today, which was fun to write and taught me a lot. This is one of the many ideas I am exploring to see how systems thinking is encouraging a different way of thinking--where businesses can contribute to and benefit from stronger communities and a natural environment. As always, I welcome your reactions and provocations. Ivey Business School at Western University, Innovation North, Network for Business Sustainability (NBS), Kavitha Ramachandragowda, Ameya Uchil, Sebastien Guillaud, Thierry de Panafieu, #systemsthinking, #ScalingStrategy #SustainableGrowth #StartupStrategy #ProfitableGrowth #Entrepreneurship #Leadership #ImpactInvesting #SustainableTransportation https://lnkd.in/gM74UmYM

79

3 Comments

Boards are supposed to help founders. Over the past 19 years, I've watched many trap them instead. As companies scale, many boards turn from insight to oversight and stop doing what founders actually need: Help making big, hard decisions. Early boards tend to be small, the board members are close to the business and highly invested in it. They argue from first principles. They help founders think. Later-stage boards often look more impressive on paper - they have more independent directors, committees and process. Somewhere along the way, collective problem solving gets replaced with oversight. The board shifts from helping the CEO make better decisions to monitoring decisions that have already been made. Strategy discussions get safer, real debate gets rarer and meetings become more about risk management than judgment. This usually coincides with the introduction of more professional board members. For better or worse, they often optimize for governance, optics, and liability management. That’s their job. But it’s not always what the company needs in moments of real uncertainty. Then, CEOs stop using them as thought partners. That’s a problem. So what should founders do? A few principles that help: • Keep the board as small as you can for as long as you can • Add directors for new insight they bring, not what boxes they check • Treat board seats like senior hires, not trophies • Design meetings for debate rather than reporting • Be explicit about when you want input vs approval Good boards should improve decision-making. If your board isn’t making you think harder, it’s probably not doing its job.

79

12 Comments