Partnered With:

Want to do Web3.0 VC? What do you need to know is fundamentally different from Web2.0 VC

Read this article in 11 Minutes

VCS in Web3.0 are completely different from VCS in Web2.0, and the stakeholders in Web3.0 are better than those in Web2.0.

原文作者：Tom Shaughnessy，Delphi Digital 联创

原文编译：0x137

Delphi Digital 是加密领域全球领先的研究咨询机构，本文梳理自 Delphi Digital 联合创始人 Tom Shaughnessy 在个人社交媒体平台上的观点，律动 BlockBeats 对其整理翻译如下：

Web3.0 的 VC 与 Web2.0 的 VC 完全不同，Web3.0 利益相关者也比 Web2.0 更好。Jack Dorsey（前推特 CEO）认为 VC 破坏了 Web3.0 的观点错了。在我看来，Jack 的世界观是基于比特币作为最终加密货币和 Web2.0 VC 的固化结构，这与 Web3.0 VC 非常不同。我认为他对风投的看法是有偏差的，因为他实际上并没有花时间构建或投资过 DeFi 以及 Web3.0 的应用程序，这归咎于他僵化的、经济文化代价高昂的「比特币原教主义」立场。

在 Web3.0 中，资本分配者和社区成员应该是同一群人，二者不可分割。但随着时间的推移，那些只是资本分配者的风险投资公司将被淘汰，因为在这个世界资本很充沛，而项目创始人更需要的是寻找利益相关者作为敬业的社区成员。Jack 将 VC 视为项目的控制实体，但实际上这取决于 VC 自己以及他们所使用的特定投资结构。在最好的情况下，Web 3.0 将会是一个由精英领导，完全由社区驱动的空间，每个项目的生死都基于其社区。如果一个项目没有倾听或适应其社区（即其用户和所有者，二者是相同的），那么它的流量和资本就都会流失。

在一个结构良好的项目中，只有社区才能控制项目的方向，而不是 VC。Web3.0 VC 可以提交治理提案，同时一位来自孟买的大学生也可以发布他的想法，两者都将受到社区的审查，并进行评估。当前在非 L1 的 Web3.0 应用程序中，提案的执行可能是半中心化的（多重签名，访问代码等），但社区实际上控制着整个项目，因为他们可以用自己的钱包进行投票，亦或抛售自己的资产来发声。

In Web2.0, users can't even vote with their wallets because they can only buy shares after the IPO at ridiculous valuations. Stakeholders in Web3.0 projects now have access to airdrops, can pledge, and can participate earlier in new projects. Web3.0 stakeholders (perhaps VCS or retail investors) fare much better than Web2.0 because:

1. Web3.0 has the incentive of early ownership, whereas Web2.0 can only buy shares after the IPO

2. Web 3.0 anyone can suggest changes in the governance forum, whereas Web2.0 VCS have special access to corporate boards

总之，相比 Web2.0，Web3.0 中的所有权和变革能力都来得更早，并能够向所有人开放。

说回 VC，无论是在 Web2.0 还是 Web3.0 中，他们都必须提供所有的原始价值增值。包括法律支持、运营、招聘和保留人才，甚至是像心理咨询师一样打长途电话与团队探讨发展愿景和解决内部问题。但在 Web3.0 中，为了保持竞争力，VC 还必须是社区中活跃的日常成员。这些活动包括考量 Token 经济学和激励措施、未来的产品或应用场景、积极的治理讨论，以及宣传项目等等。在 Web3.0 中，VC 也是利益相关者，就像其他人一样，但我们不要忘记，现在他们的合伙人也可以在支持的项目中发挥积极作用，而 Web2.0 的 VC 合伙人却不能参与 Uber 的董事会讨论并提出大规模的变革。

无论如何，「做到完美」是一个移动的目标，我认为最好的 Web3.0 风投基金将在未来几年发生很大变化，我的预测是：这些风投基金将变得更加像 DAO！

目前，我认为这是一个扩大包容性、激励采购及重组公司结构的一个内部过程。其中，基金的所有成员都是积极的，被动投资者则不会得到欢迎。那为什么基金还不敞开大门，让任何想要参与的人都可以通过开放 web3.0 投资 DAO 随心所欲地进行投资操作呢？简单来说，就是因为美国的法规使得运行合规且无需许可的投资 DAO 变得非常困难。

First, VC funds that obtain capital in the United States must register with the S.E.C. as investment advisers unless they meet certain private adviser or VC fund exemption criteria (Private: less than $150 million in assets; VC: more than 20% of the investment cannot be non-qualified assets, that is, not securities). Most crypto vc funds cannot meet these requirements to become exempt reporting Advisors (ERA) and must register with the government immediately. Keep in mind that if daOs want to use some of these exemptions, it doesn't help them get out of the rules (KYC or AML, GP and I-Advisor entity establishment, leverage restrictions, redemption, and so on). Moreover, since most people assume crypto assets will be classified as securities, the VC fund exemption standard may even be a bogus proposition. If the fund becomes big enough that the exemption is no longer valid, they must become a registered investment adviser, but a decentralized fund is largely unable to meet current legal restrictions, operational requirements and the amount of reporting. That's part of the data point for cost differences: A 2017 study by the National Venture Capital Association estimated annual compliance costs at about $60,000 for ERA and $330,000 for RIA (registered investment Advisers).

Second, in addition to the investment adviser exemption, funds are required to comply with investment company registration requirements or to file with the S.E.C. For the record. Most funds use sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. Funds that do not use passive capital typically rely on the 3(c)(1) exemption from the Investment Company Act, which means that no more than 100 people own shares in the fund (entities that invest and hold by multiple people will count towards this total). Funds can also try the 3(c)(7) exemption, but that is for "qualified purchasers" (you have to be an institutional investor and much richer than a qualified investor). Funds want to use these exemptions so that they can avoid constant disclosure, regulatory activity requirements, controls on ancillary trades and restrictions on trading activities, such as short selling and derivatives trading. But for investment DAOs, these exemptions don't work for the following reasons:

1. 当你拥有 100 个或更少的合伙人，并且没有公开发行合伙权益时，则 3(c)(1) 有效。典型的 DAO（一般有大量成员、缺乏 KYC）将无法满足上述注册要求，目前甚至连基于智能合约的传统基金能不能遵守这些要求，也是个未知数。

2. 3(c)(7) 要求所有合伙人都是「合格的购买者」，即拥有 500 万美元以上的资产，这与 DAO 的全球开放参与理念不符。

我坚信，最终所有的基金都将寻求成为链上俱乐部，并且在未来更像 DAO，更容易获得购买和赎回的许可、更有效地奖励人们所做的特定工作（采购、端口合作等）或带来的附加价值（运营、法律、编码等）。为什么？很简单，因为加密项目是由社区驱动的，无法适应的大型基金将无法与整个社区竞争，就好比说，5 个风投委员会的人是无法与全球数百万人竞争的。

有前瞻性视野的基金已经在研究这些主题了。我们可以看到，很多项目正在使链上基金变得可行：Syndicate DAO、Enzyme finance、Babylon Finance、Spar rotocol，以及一些现行案例：VENTURE DAO、The LAO Official 等。从过往来看，DAO 总是远远领先于它的时代。

总结

I think Jack is wrong about VCS, he is too focused on bitcoin and has no experience building DeFi and Web3.0 applications or working with VCS. Web3.0 VCS are just community members like everyone else, and Web3.0 funds are growing, and I expect most of them to be on the chain in the future with full community ownership and participation. While funds have not embraced becoming DAOs to date, they can make proactive changes internally. I'd love to sit down with Jack and talk about all of these topics, and I think it's going to be a very productive conversation.