机构观察站| 加密风投CryptoGP，投后退出怎么做？

-CryptoVC-LP-GP观察-

一， Crypto GP，退出怎么做？

和Crypto VC相比，传统VC的portfolio管理就比较简单了。GP要做的决策基本上就是每个基金的deal有多少、初始check size、跟投以及准备金策略。对于持有已IPO项目的早期风险基金，GP还需要制定一些策略，看看IPO锁定期（新股上市之后，原始股东要持有股票一定期限）之后，在公开市场上抛售股票的时候怎么变现，也就是公司上市之后怎么办。

而对于Crypto VC来说，通过投资加密资产，让变现能力差的基金焕发新机，带来的好处显而易见，但是portfolio管理可能也更错综复杂。如果Crypto VC持有的流动资产本质上还是和处于「早期阶段」的各种情况交织在一起，情况就更复杂了。

#1，什么时候卖出？卖出多少？

#2，投得不好，应该及时止损

#3，Crypto VC应该如何管理储备资金？

#4，需要提高回收分配和将资本再投资的能力

#5，不应该缩短基金存续期

#6，持续期延长了，LPGP的一致性会被Carry影响吗？

#7，结论

一，Crypto VC要怎么处理汹涌的流动资产

 Crypto VC会遇到以下几种挑战和问题：

和站在瀑布边的这只水鸟一样，Crypto VC可能也得想想，要怎么处理汹涌的流动资产。

和Crypto VC相比，传统VC的portfolio管理就比较简单了。GP要做的决策基本上就是每个基金的deal有多少、初始check size、跟投以及准备金策略。对于持有已IPO项目的早期风险基金，GP还需要制定一些策略，看看IPO锁定期（新股上市之后，原始股东要持有股票一定期限）之后，在公开市场上抛售股票的时候怎么变现，也就是公司上市之后怎么办。

上市之后GP会考虑四个因素：股票的变现能力，股票的持有数量，公司业绩和估值，以及基金的投资回报率。一些基金偶尔会在IPO时或者IPO后买入更多股票，但主要还是看什么时候卖出、怎么卖出。另外，一家上市公司往往也希望自己的风险投资人能在IPO后，慢慢地清算掉有他原先持有的股份。因为估计这个时候，这只基金已经持有这家公司好几年了，不退出也创造不了更多价值。

做好早期基金公开持股这方面的决定，是GP成功之路上必不可少的基石。因为IPO通常代表着一家公司成功地结出了果实，同时也意味着有了大量的头寸。但对于一只特定的基金来说，在二级市场持股数量上（如果有的话），GP需要做的工作相对比较少。一般情况下，GP唯一要决定的就是出售的时机。这种时候，IPO之后就不需要进一步的储备资金了。所以，管理上市头寸的过程相对简单，虽然有时候基金业绩会受到影响。

而对于Crypto VC来说，通过投资加密资产，让变现能力差的基金焕发新机，带来的好处显而易见，但是portfolio管理可能也更错综复杂。如果Crypto VC持有的流动资产本质上还是和处于「早期阶段」的各种情况交织在一起，情况就更复杂了。这种时候Crypto VC会遇到以下几种挑战和问题：

1.如果Crypto VC在流动资产上拿到了丰厚的回报，但还处于早期阶段，那什么时候开始卖出？卖出多少？

Crypto VC是否应该保持买入并长期持有的方式，或者在持有期间更积极活跃地管理流动资产？

如果Crypto VC在公开市场出售早期资产，会面临明显的风险吗？

2.Crypto VC是否应该清算表现欠佳的早期加密资产，然后再投资给更有前景的机会？

3.Crypto VC应该如何管理储备资金？

4.相对于传统的风险投资基金，加密资产的行情变化更加瞬息万变。在LPA（有限合伙协议）里，应不应该规定Crypto VC需要提高回收分配和将资本再投资的能力？

5.如果Crypto VC主要投资加密资产，应不应该缩短基金期限？

6.随着长期的资本利得减少了Crypto VC与LP之间的协同一致，三年的持有期要求是否会对GP的carry征税（主要指的是在美国）？

#1，什么时候卖出？卖出多少？

持有流动资产的GP应该一直绷紧的一根弦就是，如何帮LP变现，和什么时候变现。有些GP曾经公开表示，他们没卖出过基金中的任何一种加密资产。这可能是为了显示他们对整个市场的「贡献值」，更可能是为了显示自己能沉得住气，和那些一旦token能变现就立马卖出的人不一样。不管怎样，虽然的确会有人欣赏他们这样说，但如果GP仅仅为了持股而持股，也不是啥值得拿来大说特说的业绩。

就像我们之前所说的「在风投世界里，玩一局长线游戏」一样，无论是为了投资策略，还是为了基金的名声，Crypto VC都不能只关注投资决策中的眼前利润，而忽视长期影响。

思考这个问题有两个关窍，也就是Crypto VC应该怎么处理已经拿到的可观回报，但还处于早期阶段的流动资产：

1）从当前估值得出这项投资未来的风险/回报状况，

2）做好LP和创始人都会期待的长期战略。

首先，Crypto VC根据风险/回报情况做出投资决策并不是一件难事。从理论上讲，GP应该根据未来潜在的上升空间、风险状况和对这笔投资的信念程度决定，是卖出还是继续持有。从投资结果来看，在某些情况下卖出一部分也说得通，因为这样既可以降低风险，又能保留未来的上行潜力。

但是投资决策也得在适当的背景下做出，所以Crypto VC还要照顾到LP和企业家等长期合作伙伴的共同利益。

LP投钱给GP，特别是像加密货币和区块链这种新兴类别，主要是希望在长期持有期内实现超额回报。这样的回报要远远超过LP固有的benchmark（一般是公开市场等价指标或者固定的年度目标回报）。LP不希望他们的风险投资基金变成一个频繁进出的短期交易员，而是希望能铸就一座甚至更多风险投资回报的恢弘丰碑，像投中Facebook、Uber、Airbnb的基金一样，为LP带来高净值的基金回报倍数。

一只基金在有了变现能力之后，如果可以用一笔加密领域的投资在2到3年内让项目翻20倍，就算是功德圆满了。如果不太可能实现进一步的实质性的升值，那从portfolio管理的角度来看，让一部分投资落地变现也是合适的，但仅此一点并不能促成基金赚到巨额回报。

不过，如果GP对一项投资信心满满，认定它在未来5年或更长时间里，有潜力让单个项目从20倍的回报率飙升到100倍或1000倍，这种成果才能真正让基金长久受益。LP希望GP投入到真正有价值的事情里去，挥出一杆漂亮的本垒打，为LP带来5-10倍的净资金回报。

所有这些都说明了，如果一家风险投资基金持有的是流动的早期加密资产，而且迄今为止已经取得了可观的回报，那么它应该小心的是，不要卖出太多在未来会更有价值的东西——为了最好的结果，LP愿意等。

Crypto VC在决定如何出售早期流动加密资产时，还需要考虑企业家。和传统风险投资类似，加密行业的企业家希望和他们的风险投资人成为长期合作伙伴，一起投身于未来愿景的创造中去。

如果一家传统的风险投资基金在三五年后就着急卖出它在创业公司中持有的股权，而不是等八到十年后再退出，基金作为企业合作伙伴的声誉往往会受损，还会影响它以后做好一笔前景无量的deal的能力。这一点在领投的投资人开出大额支票的情况下尤为显著，相比之下，那些没领投什么轮次、只开出小额支票的小型基金可能更灵活。

投区块链和Crypto VC的LP也要守住这个原则，而不是因为能卖出了就提前抛售。如果Crypto VC决定在锁定期之后，立即卖出持有的股份，即使这个投资决策可能是出于谨慎考虑。Crypto VC一步步制定好portfolio的管理策略之后，不能忽视基金自身企业家圈子里的声誉，以及对多只基金持续创造回报能力造成的影响。

#2，投得不好，应该及时止损

风险投资家经常会说，相对于某些明星项目对基金回报的贡献，他们花太多时间在那些陷入困境的portfolio身上了。这是很自然的，因为最好的公司一旦进入了迅速发展的轨道，往往也不会花GP太多时间。但是，把这一点搬到加密世界里去，如果Crypto VC可以通过卖出业绩不佳的资产来绕过这个难题呢？如果在这些表现不好的资产身上已经看不到什么未来了，那把时间和资金投入到其他地方，比如剩一点钱加仓另一期基金里少数最有前途的项目，又会怎么样？

从纯投资的角度来看，在某些情况下这么做可能还不错，持有流动加密资产的基金应该考虑到这一点，即使它们还处于相对早期的阶段。但是就像前面提到的，Crypto VC得确定这么做符不符合一开始就和LP商量好的基金策略，以及会不会败坏他们在企业家中的名声，从而影响未来的deal flow和接触好项目的机会。

LP不会对此有什么看法。按照「PayPal 黑帮」老大Peter Thiel的幂律，加倍投资最好的公司是谨慎的策略，目的是实现长期回报最大化。

而在创业者这个方面，估计Crypto VC会根据具体情况来判断快速卖出会不会影响自己的名声。但至少在某些情况下，Crypto VC可能会用一种不损害其他价值的方式，从表现不佳的资产中抽身。如果他们本来是好的合作伙伴，而且对投资的期望值很低，那么其他企业家就不会怪Crypto VC太早卖出了，要是大家都很喜欢这家风投基金，就更不会有什么影响了。

所以，持有流动加密资产的风投基金可以思量一下，卖出那些他们很不看好的早期资产，然后再投资其他非常看好的portfolio公司。这也不总是对的，但至少可以有这么一层考虑。

想确保投资不会受损，GP要学会及时从失败的加密资产中回收资金，并在成功的加密资产中加码押注，才能在千帆竞发的加密投资市场中跻身前列（这一点说起来容易做起来难，溯元已经关注到了很多成功实践，及时止损，剑指百倍）。

#3，Crypto VC应该如何管理储备资金？

握着一笔储备资金的概念和创业公司传统的融资方式有关，也就是已经进场的投资人可以继续投钱（企业家也希望投资人会继续注资）的一系列融资。所以，如果你投了A轮，就要准备好一笔储备资金，以防你还想或者还需要投B轮C轮等后续轮次。

一般来说，风投机构可能会将50%的资金用来做初始投资，50%用来做后续跟投。一些投资机构不会筹集额外的资金，因此对于那些储备资金真的会派上用场的机构来说，一般来说，后续的投资规模会超过初始投资的金额。

而对于私人加密资产的投资来说，在一项资产可以在交易所公开交易之前，可能会有很多次的私人token买卖，但是买卖的数量一般和需要储备资金的基金融资轮数量并不相同。因此，尽管未来私人买卖可能需要一些储备资金，但Crypto VC的储备资金不再是为了支撑后续跟投，而是为了实现基金的纯回报最大化。

为了调整比较少的所需储备资金，Crypto VC可以考虑三种主要方法：

1）增加初始的check size，减少储备资金，

2）在相同初始check size和较少储备资金的情况下，每个基金做更多deal，或者

3）保持传统的储备资金策略。

因为对于GP来说，有机会用流动资产，以有吸引力的价格，增加某些加密资产的头寸。

选项3可能是个不错的选择。比较小的初始check size能降低风险，防止大额支票白白浪费在没过几年就草草收场的公司身上。所以，在其他条件相同的情况下，开出更大的初始check size并不可取。基金也不应该仅仅因为现在有增加deal数量的能力，就真的开始做更多的deal。因为这会导致portfolio出现过度的多样化，可能降低投资回报，稀释掉成功项目的影响比重。

总的来说，较低的储备资金会让风投基金没法在它的最佳投资里，继续倾注大量的投资。未来，Crypto VC将会有机会通过公开市场，增加他们对早期流动资产的持有量，如果这件事做成了，将会为LP带来更高的回报。

所以一个悬而未决的问题是，如果风投基金在某些流动加密资产的早期就把它变现了（无论是全部还是部分），然后Crypto VC把这些资金循环利用到其他投资机会中，这样会不会在一定程度上减少对储备资金的需要？当然有可能，但归根究底，现在还不能保证在早期阶段就把加密资产变现，所以Crypto VC还是会谨慎行事。

#4，需要提高回收分配和将资本再投资的能力

无论基金的意图如何，最求稳的做法都是保持最大的灵活性，别让GP最后不得不采取更积极、更消耗自己精力的portfolio管理方法。传统的风险投资基金通常可以投资高达110-120%的承诺资本（通过回收已经变现的收益），而Crypto VC需要不断尝试，找到和自己的投资策略最匹配的已变现收益回收比例。

对于一家100%投资加密资产的基金来说，可以再增加20%的再投资上限（reinvestment cap），依此类推（也就是说，如果一家基金有50%投加密资产，那就再增加另外10%的再投资上限）。

#5，不应该缩短基金存续期

即使Crypto VC主要投资加密资产，也不应该缩短基金存续期。四到六年（假设六年的基金存续期里有两年的投资期）不太可能有足够的时间让种子轮和早期轮次的投资彻底成熟，从而连续地实现价值最大化，以及获得风险回报。就算某些投资已经能变现，但这并不意味着GP就应该这时候卖。所以，因为投资加密资产而缩短基金存续期的基金，要么会超出一开始规定的期限，要么会在某些情况下过早出售，让LP的钱竹篮打水一场空。

#6，持续期延长了，LPGP的一致性会被Carry影响吗？

2018年1月，美国出台了一项法律，规定风险投资基金必须持有投资至少三年，GP的carry才能变成资金收益。也就是GP得持有一项投资3年，才能拿到carry。在此之前，持有期为一年。

这项法律很明显地在鼓励各类风投基金持有资产至少三年，以便更顺利地拿到carry。对于传统的风投基金来说，这种变化影响不大，因为大多数投资——尤其是那些表现优异并且创造了大部分carry的投资——无论如何都得有超过三年的持有期。

但是对于Crypto VC而言，持有能更快变现的资产，卖出的理想时间可能比三年要短，这里面也包括那些为GP带来可观carry的投资。在这种情况下，GP可能会受到税收的驱动，持有资产的时间比LP更长。这也意味着，GP可能不太会非常积极地管理流动加密资产了，除非超额回报产生的资产能带来更多carry，至少得能抵消税收的变化。从积极的一面来看，这应该会阻止Crypto VC太频繁地快进快出，或者在各种新的变现快的加密资产中间摇摆不定。

在某些情况下，LPGP之间可能缺乏一致性的问题是无解的，而且Crypto VC一定都很清楚，在各种情况下他们的carry会怎么被收税。LP当然希望GP会优先考虑LP的利益，但LP还是需要往深了想想，确保Crypto VC意识到他们的利益一致性，别因为税收的因素影响投资的脚步，让GP管理好portfolio，优化回报。

#7，结论

在加密资产的变现能力不断强劲的时代，Crypto VC的portfolio管理不会出现一种适用于所有情况的金科玉律。

慢慢地，一些很不错的具体实践会被发掘出来，而那些更积极地探求如何利用加密资产变现，让自己和LP的利益翻倍的Crypto VC，将在这个过程中获得超额回报。

在传统的风险投资领域，新入行的基金往往容易出现portfolio管理的失误。如果没有先见之明，区块链和加密世界中的许多GP也会在这里跌倒，然后从中吸取教训。重要的是，Crypto VC在刚刚建立基金的时候，就应该考虑这些问题。为了确保基金结构合理，以及GP在portfolio管理方法上思虑周全，LP也应该在尽调工作中涵盖我们讨论的这些主题。

Crypto VC Portfolio Management: Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges of Illiquid Liquidity（原文）

：

Not unlike this bird at waterfall’s edge, crypto VCs may find themselves wondering how to deal with an abundance of liquid assets

Crypto VC Portfolio Management: Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges of Illiquid Liquidity

Portfolio management for traditional venture capital funds has historically been relatively straightforward. The big decisions are number of deals per fund, initial check size and follow-on/reserves strategy. For the small fraction of investments made by an early stage venture fund which hold IPOs, the manager also will need to determine a liquidity strategy for its public holdings post lockup. In the past, I was closely involved in the publics strategy at Greenspring Associates so have first-hand experience both managing this process and watching how a wide range of other venture managers have approached this challenge.

The public strategy will take into account factors such as 1) how liquid the stock is, 2) how much they own, 3) company performance and valuation, and 4) what is the fund’s return on investment. Some funds will occasionally buy more at or post-IPO, but primarily the decision is when and how to sell. Further, a public company expects its venture backers to liquidate their holdings in a prudent fashion post-IPO (unless it’s a pre-revenue life sciences company) given the fund’s hold period has likely been at least several years.

Decisions around these public holdings for an early stage fund can be important to its success, as IPOs typically represent successful outcomes and thus large positions. But for a given fund, there will be a relatively small number of, if any, public holdings for which the manager needs to determine a strategy. And typically the only decision is when to sell, in which case no further reserves are required post-IPO. This makes the process of managing public positions rather simple, despite sometimes having high impact on fund performance.

For illiquid venture capital funds investing in crypto assets (“Crypto VCs” for simplicity sake), increased liquidity for an illiquid fund is a significant benefit but portfolio management can be more complicated. Especially if the liquid assets held are related to a network which is still “early stage” in nature. In my view, there are several challenges and questions which arise, listed below:

1. If Crypto VCs have achieved a strong return on a liquid asset but which is still at an early stage, when does it become prudent to sell and in what quantities?

1a. Should Crypto VCs maintain a long-term buy-and-hold approach or more actively manage liquid assets during a hold period?

1b. Will there be signaling risk if Crypto VCs sell early stage assets in the public market?

2. Should Crypto VCs liquidate under-performing early stage crypto assets and reinvest into more promising opportunities?

3. How should Crypto VCs manage reserves?

4. Relative to traditional VC funds, should Crypto VCs increase the ability to recycle distributions and reinvest capital in the LPA?

5. Should Crypto VCs have a shorter fund term if they are investing primarily in crypto assets?

6. Will the three-year hold requirement for GPs to have their carried interest taxed as long-term capital gains decrease alignment between Crypto VCs and their LPs?

Below, I have provided my thoughts on how Crypto VCs might approach these portfolio management questions related to liquid crypto assets.

1 — If Crypto VCs have achieved a strong return on a liquid asset but which is still at an early stage, when does it become prudent to sell and in what quantities?

Fund managers holding liquid assets should always be thinking about how and when to get liquidity for Limited Partners. Certain managers have stated publicly they haven’t sold a single crypto asset from their funds. This may be to show their dedication to the market, or more likely they want to differentiate from those who are flipping tokens once they are liquid. Regardless, while I appreciate their long-term commitment and the message which the public statement sends other entrepreneurs, there is no honor as a fund manager in holding just for the sake of holding.

Crypto VCs also cannot focus solely on short-term profits in making investment decisions while ignoring long-term ramifications, whether strategy or reputation oriented.

There two key levers that shape my thinking on how Crypto VCs should handle liquid assets which have achieved a sizable return but remain early stage: 1) future risk/return profile of the investment from the current valuation and 2) implementing a long-term strategy that both LPs and entrepreneurs expect.

The first lever, making investment decisions based on the risk/return profile, is not complicated. Fund managers in theory should sell or not sell liquid assets based on the potential future upside, risk profile, and level of conviction. Depending on the result, in some cases a partial sale could also make sense, to de-risk while retaining future upside potential.

However, investment decisions should not be made without proper context. The second lever is that venture managers need to keep in mind the expectations of both Limited Partners and entrepreneurs, specifically that they are aligned, long-term focused partners driving for big outcomes.

Limited Partners invest in venture capital, and specifically emerging categories such as crypto and blockchain, primarily in hopes of achieving outsized returns over a long hold period which is meaningfully in excess of their benchmark, typically either a public market equivalent or a fixed annual target return. LPs do not want their venture funds to be short-term traders. They want exposure to one or more of the massive outcomes that drive venture returns and make for high net fund return multiples to LPs (Facebook, Uber, Airbnb, etc.).

For example, it’s a good outcome if a fund can achieve a 20x multiple on a crypto investment in two to three years once it becomes liquid. And if it is unlikely to achieve further material appreciation, then realizing some of the investment may be appropriate from a portfolio management lens, but that alone won’t drive outsized fund returns. But if it’s a high conviction investment with the potential to move from 20x to a 100x or 1000x return in another five or more years, that’s the type of outcome that truly makes a fund. LPs want their venture funds to take their time, build valuable companies (or networks), and go for the home runs which can generate a 5x-10x+ net fund return to Limited Partners.

All this goes to say, if a venture fund is sitting on a liquid, early stage crypto asset which has provided a significant return to date, it should be careful not to sell too much of something that could be meaningfully more valuable in the future — LPs will be fine waiting.

Entrepreneurs also need to be considered when deciding on how to sell early stage liquid crypto assets. Similar to traditional venture capital, crypto entrepreneurs want their venture investors to be long-term partners who are committed to the future vision of the business or network and are actively providing value through guidance, introductions, network participation, etc.

If a traditional venture fund were to sell its equity holding in a startup after five years instead of waiting for the exit in eight to ten years, this would damage their reputation as a valuable partner to entrepreneurs and hurt their ability to execute on promising deals in the future. It would also potentially be a negative signal for future investors in the business. This is especially the case for lead investors writing larger checks, whereas smaller funds who are not leading rounds and writing smaller checks may have more flexibility.

Blockchain and crypto venture funds need to maintain this same discipline and not sell out early just because they can. Even if it might be a prudent investment decision in isolation, if a Crypto VC decides to sell its holdings in a crypto network right away post lockup this may leave a bad taste in the mouth of the entrepreneur and thus impact the fund’s ability to access other promising deals in the future. The future impact on a fund’s reputation with entrepreneurs and the ability to consistently generate returns over several funds cannot be overlooked as portfolio management decisions are made.

2 — Should Crypto VCs liquidate under-performing early stage crypto assets and reinvest into more promising opportunities?

One of the comments one consistently hears from venture capitalists is that they spend too much time with struggling portfolio companies that need a lot of attention, relative to the impact of those companies on their fund returns. This is natural, as the best companies often don’t need as much time from their VCs once they are at a certain scale and trajectory. But, applying this to crypto networks, what if Crypto VCs could bypass this problem by selling their under-performing assets which carry low expectations and reinvest that time and money elsewhere, hopefully into a small number of the most promising investments from a given fund.

From a pure investment standpoint this likely makes sense in certain cases and should be considered by funds holding liquid crypto assets even if they are still relatively early stage. But revisiting the second lever from earlier, crypto VCs must determine if this will be consistent with the strategy LPs are paying them to implement and will it impact their standing with entrepreneurs such that it will impair future deal flow and access.

On the LP side, there should not be any issues. Doubling down on your best companies, in the vein of the Peter Thiel’s power law, is a prudent strategy aimed and maximizing long-term returns.

For entrepreneurs, I expect this will be more case-by-case for Crypto VCs to judge if there will be any impact to reputation. But in at least some cases, I expect that Crypto VCs could exit under-performing assets in a manner that does not significantly impair the network’s value. And if they were otherwise good partners and expectations are low then other entrepreneurs will not blame them for selling early — especially if the venture fund is a sought-after partner.

As such, I would encourage venture funds holding liquid crypto assets to actively consider selling their lower conviction early stage assets and to reinvest in other higher conviction portfolio companies. It won’t always be the proper decision, but it should at least be on the table.

3 — How should Crypto VCs manage reserves?

The concept of holding reserves is tied to the way that startups have traditionally raised capital, namely a series of financings in which existing investors can and are expected to continue investing capital. So, if you invest in a Series A financing, you need to “reserve” capital in case you want/need to also invest in the Series B, Series C, etc. Typically, VCs might put 50% toward initial investments and reserve 50% for follow-on investments. Some companies won’t raise additional financings so for the companies that actually use the reserves the total follow-on investment is, on average, more than the initial check.

For investments in private crypto assets, there may be multiple private token sales before an asset becomes publicly tradable on exchanges, but one does not expect the same quantity of financing rounds for which funds need to reserve capital. Thus, while there could be some reserves needed/wanted for future private sales, reserves for Crypto VCs becomes less about supporting the company and more about pure return maximization for the fund.

In my view, to adjust for a lower level of required reserves, there are three core reserve approaches Crypto VCs could consider: 1) increase initial check sizes and lower reserves, 2) do more deals per fund at same initial check size and lower reserves, or 3) maintain a traditional reserves strategy knowing that for liquid assets there may be the opportunity to increase positions in certain networks at attractive prices.

I would recommend option #3 above. Small initial check sizes help with risk mitigation, keeping large checks from being sunk into companies or networks that fail within the first couple of years. So, all else equal, writing larger initial checks is not desirable. Funds also should not increase quantity of deals in a fund than they currently find appropriate just because they can. This would lead to over-diversification, potentially a lower bar for investment, and make each successful investment less impactful.

Broadly, lower reserves would keep venture funds from following on as heavily in its best investments. I expect that there will be attractive opportunities for Crypto VCs to increase their holdings of early stage liquid assets through the public markets, and if implemented successfully that this can lead to higher returns for Limited Partners.

All that said, one outstanding question is if venture funds take early liquidity (whether full or partial) for some liquid crypto assets, would the ability to recycle that capital into other opportunities in part reduce the need for reserves? Its certainly possible, but there is no guarantee of early liquidity, so I would proceed with caution for the time being.

4 — Relative to traditional VC funds, should Crypto VCs increase the ability to recycle distributions and reinvest capital in the LPA?

Yes. Regardless of the fund’s intentions, it is prudent to maintain maximum flexibility in case the more actively managed portfolio management approach becomes warranted. Traditional VC funds usually can invest up to 110–120% of committed capital (via recycling of realized proceeds). While Crypto VCs will have to refine over time how much recycling is appropriate for their specific strategy, I would suggest increasing the reinvestment cap by another 20 percentage points to start for a fund that invests 100% in crypto assets, or pro rata thereof (i.e. another 10 percentage points for a fund investing 50% in crypto assets).

5 — Should Crypto VCs have a shorter fund term if they are investing primarily in crypto assets?

No. Four to six years (if one assumes a six-year term and a two-year investment period) is not likely to be enough time to allow seed and early stage investments to mature sufficiently to consistently maximize value and achieve venture returns. Just because something is liquid it doesn’t mean you should sell. As such, I expect funds doing this to either extend way beyond the initial term or sell prematurely in certain cases and leave money on the table for Limited Partners.

6 — Will the three-year hold requirement for GPs to have their carried interest taxed as long-term capital gains decrease alignment between Crypto VCs and their LPs?

In January 2018, a new law was introduced effective immediately dictating that an investment must be held by a venture capital fund for at least three years for the General Partner’s carried interest to be treated as capital gains. Prior, the cut-off was a one-year hold period.

This new law clearly incentivizes venture funds of all kinds to hold assets for at least three years, in order to receive friendlier treatment on their carried interest. For traditional venture funds, the change is not significantly impactful, as most investments — especially the ones that outperform and generate most of the carry — require hold periods in excess of three years anyways.

For Crypto VCs, however, holding assets which become liquid more quickly may lead to situations where its ideal to sell investments in less than three years, including those which generate meaningful carried interest for the General Partner. In this scenario, GPs may be incentivized by tax considerations to hold assets longer than would otherwise be optimal for LPs. It also means that GPs could be less likely to implement a more active management strategy for liquid crypto assets unless the alpha generated provides incremental carried interest to at least offset the change in tax treatment. On the positive side, this should deter Crypto VCs from trying to be traders or pursuing a strategy of doing quick flips of newly liquid crypto assets.

There is no answer to the potential for lack of alignment in certain cases and it would be naive to think that the GPs of Crypto VC funds are not keenly aware of how their carry will be taxed in different situations. One would hope that GPs will prioritize the interest of Limited Partners, both as high integrity stewards of their capital and due to their fiduciary duty to Limited Partners. But Limited Partners will clearly need to be vigilant to ensure that Crypto VCs are reminded of this and manage portfolios to optimize LP returns.

Conclusion

I do not believe there is “correct” approach to Crypto VC portfolio management in the age of increasing liquidity which applies consistently to every situation. Over time I expect certain best practices will emerge. But I believe those who are more proactive in determining how they can use the increased liquidity of crypto assets to their benefit will be able to generate alpha in the process. First time venture funds are often prone to portfolio management mistakes in the traditional venture world and I fear that without proper forethought that many within the blockchain and crypto world will also learn the hard way. Its important that Crypto VCs consider these topics as they establish funds and that LPs cover them in their diligence efforts, to ensure funds are structured properly and GPs are thoughtful in their approach to portfolio management.

来源；溯元育新编译

Hutt Capital原文链接https://medium.com/@HuttCapital/crypto-vc-portfolio-management-navigating-the-opportunities-and-challenges-of-illiquid-liquidity-3c3993b57884

商务合作：请加微信VCBLO1

添加微信请注明：地区-企业-职位-姓名

版权说明：投行VCPE部落专注于分享企业投融资案例以及岗位招聘信息！同时对于企业我们灵活运用资本市场的各项融资工具，在企业不同战略发展阶段，为中小企业提供解决“融资难”“融资贵”的利器，并量体裁衣地为企业提供个性化融资方案！部分推送的融资案例未及时与原作者联系·在已知出处的情况下均已注明来源，版权归原作者所有,若涉及版权问题，敬请原作者联系我们删除，感谢每一位作者的辛苦创作与付出！欢迎各位有经典的资本运作案例投稿!

投稿邮箱：[e-mail]