(cre @therosieum)
Crypto was once seen as a frontier of freedom — a place where anyone could build and innovate without permission. But by 2025, that spirit has changed.
Fundraising in crypto today feels more like a Goldman Sachs hiring round — where founders with polished resumes, Ivy League degrees, and big-name company experience get prioritized.
On the surface, VCs still talk about supporting visionary builders and backing innovation from the community. But the reality is far from that. The tens or even hundreds of millions in funding mostly go to a small circle of founders with the "right" background.
Let’s take a look at some common traits behind massive fundraising deals like Monad, Berachain, LayerZero, Babylon, and Infinex. The pattern is clear:
Â
âś… Traits that make a founder more likely to get funded:
- Top-tier education: Stanford, MIT, Harvard. Coming from a public university? Chances are near zero.
- Branded work experience: Previously at Coinbase, Ethereum Foundation, Jump Trading... These names on LinkedIn carry more weight than the actual product being built.
- Success in past cycles: Even if their previous token tanked 90%, it’s still seen as “valuable experience.”
- Academic credibility: Having published papers, especially co-authoring with blockchain scholars like Sreeram Kannan, gives a big edge.
- Warm intros via strong networks: Knowing a well-connected founder or getting referred by someone within the Ethereum ecosystem beats any pitch deck.
Meanwhile, the things that should matter — real products, real users, breakthrough ideas — often take a backseat.
Â
⚙️ So why do VCs operate this way?
Because those signals help reduce risk. Founders who’ve succeeded before, who “belong to the system,” and who know the right people statistically have a higher chance of success. From an investor’s perspective, that makes logical sense.
Crypto is a small, tightly connected ecosystem. When someone used to work at Synthetix, co-authored with Eigenlayer, or brought on 0xMaki as an advisor — the trust factor skyrockets. Relationships carry real weight.
But precisely because the network is so small and insular, outsiders have a tough time breaking in — especially if you're:
- Not from the West
- Not into networking
- An anonymous or self-taught dev
- A female founder or from an underrepresented community
The result? The same familiar faces keep getting funded over and over — while truly innovative builders often get overlooked simply because they don’t "fit the profile."
Â
🚪So what’s the path for “non-traditional” founders?
Not everyone can go to Stanford or work at Coinbase. But there are other viable paths — if you stay persistent and strategic.
🌱 A more realistic path for real builders:
- Build in public, share consistently: Real products, real users, real traction — those can eventually outweigh even the best-looking LinkedIn.
- Seek contrarian VCs: Some investors are willing to back non-traditional founders. Rare, but worth 10 traditional VCs once found.
- Bootstrap as long as you can: The less you depend on funding early, the more leverage you’ll have later.
- Tap into alternative capital: Crypto angels, community funding, shared revenue models, or ecosystem grants can all help you stay afloat.
📌 It’s understandable that VCs prefer repeat winners. They're smart people trying to optimize for success. But when everyone follows the same criteria, the market risks missing out on the most disruptive builders — simply because they don’t fit the mold.
Â
Crypto was shaped by people like:
- Satoshi – anonymous
- Vitalik – a teenage blogger
- Hayden Adams – a mechanical engineer with no crypto background
If today's funding landscape keeps narrowing, we may never see such game-changers emerge again.
Understanding these unspoken rules helps founders prepare smarter — and reminds investors to stay sharp when choosing between safe bets and wild cards. Because sometimes, the wild cards are the ones who change everything.
Â
[Original tweet] https://x.com/therosieum/status/1926690829948645855
