VC Fund Dossiers

Mac built his entire first institutional venture fund largely through Twitter, publicly documenting the journey without an existing LP network and using cold DMs and general solicitation rather than traditional closed-door fundraising channels. The fund was built through founder Mac's Twitter presence rather than traditional institutional networks, and operates with unusual transparency by publicly sharing fundraising tactics and term sheet learnings to help overlooked founders access capital. Known as Mac the VC, he intentionally uses a highly public, educator-style social media presence as a core part of his brand, turning the normally opaque process of VC and fund formation into something transparent and accessible for founders and aspiring fund managers. This is both his superpower and potential weakness. On one hand, he genuinely gets what it's like to be an outsider founder and brings real credibility to that relationship. His approach is refreshingly hands-on: "My secret for getting on the cap table is helping founders understand that I'm not money. I'm basically an employee. When you take this money from RareBreed, treat me like an employee because we are tied at the hip. We are in a marriage, and so whatever you need from me, just ask. I think that resonates with founders. You could talk to company after company in our portfolio, they'll tell you we helped them hire, we helped them get funding, we helped them with strategy, etc." However, he's still on Fund I with no announced Fund II yet (though may be in preparation), and the fund appears well-positioned to raise a larger Fund II based on demonstrated execution, founder satisfaction, and increasing mainstream acceptance that the traditional pre-seed model was leaving high-quality opportunities on the table. The question is whether his thesis of backing overlooked founders will produce the returns needed for institutional LPs in Fund II, or if he'll need to drift toward more traditional deals to scale.

Scott Birnbaum is the kind of investor founders actually want to work with - he gets his hands dirty post-investment and doesn't just write checks and disappear. Portfolio companies consistently say RSV "punches way above their weight" in BD, strategy, and PR support. The fund has serious conviction around "cult brand" consumer companies and mission-driven founders, which sounds fluffy but actually translates to early bets on category-defining companies like Sweetgreen and Allbirds before they were obvious wins. They strongly prefer warm intros through their network, so if you can't get a connection, you're probably SOL. The portfolio skews heavily NYC-centric with some legitimately impressive exits, but fund size means they can't lead larger rounds.

This isn't really an active fund anymore — it's Andy Dunn's personal brand vehicle with a legendary early track record. Dave Eisenberg moved on to Zigg Capital in 2016, and they 'finished up' their 3rd fund that year per AngelList. The confusion in online data sources (some showing 2022 Fund IV, others showing the fund on hiatus) tells you everything. Andy's busy with Pie, his mental health advocacy, and being a Walmart alum. Yes, they still do deals, but it's more sporadic angel-style investing than systematic fund deployment. The good news: if Andy likes you, he's genuinely helpful and well-connected. The bad news: he admits his intensity has driven away most co-founders he's worked with.

Redmile is one of the most respected healthcare crossover funds in the game, but they're essentially a hedge fund with venture capital aspirations. Jeremy Green built his reputation as a sharp healthcare analyst at Citi before launching Redmile, and his European perspective on biotech gives him edge that most US-centric funds lack. The good news: they have real money ($6.5B AUM), genuine expertise, and will stick with you through public markets - rare in today's VC world. The reality check: this isn't your typical founder-friendly VC. They're investors, not advisors, and they evaluate opportunities with hedge fund rigor. If your biotech has solid science and a clear path to meaningful revenue, they're fantastic. If you need hand-holding or warm introductions to potential customers, look elsewhere.

Ridge is one of the more authentic enterprise-focused funds out there - they actually mean it when they say "revenue-first" and aren't chasing the latest AI hype cycle just for vanity. Founders rave about partners like Brendan Baker who "doesn't waste entrepreneurs' time" and delivers real value through feedback and connections. Their "Ridge Revenue Network" of 100+ Fortune 500 CXOs isn't just marketing fluff - they actually write customer intro commitments into term sheets. Gil Penchina brings serious operating chops and a massive angel network, while Alex Rosen has a track record of picking winners early. The downside? As a "focused fund" they're super selective and only back companies where their excitement matches the founder's - so if you don't click personally, you're out.

Rittenhouse is the anti-unicorn fund that actually makes sense in today's market. Saul Richter explicitly says he's "not interested in searching for so-called unicorns" and is "more interested in exits of $35 to $75 million." This is refreshingly honest - they're not chasing billion-dollar fantasies, they're building a business around achievable outcomes. With "total portfolio exit values exceeding $3 billion," they've actually delivered returns. The team upgrade with David Nevas (Edison Partners pedigree) and Sushma Rajagopalan (actual CEO experience) shows they're serious about scaling beyond their Philly roots. They acknowledge that "our region has yet to scale up its corresponding growth capital base" but see opportunity in being "location in the heart of Philly means we have some of the best and brightest in the country right at our doorstep." The founder testimonials are genuinely positive - not just generic praise.