Research · Founder diligence

Founder capital diligence notes

These notes were assembled for a founder comparing capital providers in August 2026. They record what thirty firms publish about their focus, process, and governance, along with questions to ask before sharing sensitive information or accepting money. They do not measure investor alignment, predict conduct, or recommend a firm.

Source review dated 7 August 2026 · Last edited 22 August 2026

Directed and edited by Tyler Martin. Initial research and drafting assistance from Claude Code using Firecrawl and Anthropic Claude Opus 5 on 8 August 2026. Copy and claim review with OpenAI Codex on 22 August 2026.

How to use these notes The number preserves a stable editorial review order. It is not a score or rank. The first ten firms have fuller notes because that source pass went deeper; the remaining twenty have shorter follow-up prompts. Fit depends on your company, round, terms, and the partner who would hold the relationship.

Most sources are firm or partner pages. Their descriptions of mission, process, founder service, and impact are claims to verify, not evidence of how they behave when a founder is in conflict with the firm. Check those claims with off-list founder references, draft financing documents, and written conflict disclosures. Where a B Lab directory link appears, it verifies B Corp certification only. B Corp certification is separate from benefit corporation legal status.

Method

The notes list the firm and named partners separately so founders can check both.
Firm statements are labeled as published claims or materials. Editorial concerns appear under questions to verify.
Portfolio overlap is a question, not a conclusion. Whether another investment competes with yours depends on what you are building and what information you would disclose.
Source status says when the review used only firm-authored material or remained incomplete.
The original research produced decimal scores in three batches that used different reference firms. Those numbers were not comparable and were removed.
The displayed order remains only so the HTML, TXT, and CSV can use stable note identifiers.
Partner rosters, stages, and check sizes are as published in August 2026. Verify all three before outreach.
Notes 24, 25, and 27 have incomplete source passes.

Ten fuller notes

Stated focus. What the firm says it backs, quoted or closely paraphrased from its own published thesis as of August 2026. Where a firm publishes no domain thesis, the entry says so rather than inferring one from its portfolio.

Note 01 · Homebrew

Homebrew

Partners listed: Hunter Walk; Satya Patel

Published stage/check: Pre-seed/seed; $100k–$500k for ~90% of activity; Americas

Stated focus: early-stage generalist backing “mission-driven founders”; no domain thesis published

What the firm publishes: The firm says it has no ownership target, uses partner capital, makes a health and ethics commitment, and sets an urgent-founder response time.

Questions to verify: Ask how much capital is reserved for follow-on rounds and review AI, data, and defense portfolio conflicts.

Source status: Firm and partner pages only

Sources: homebrew.co · hunterwalk.com/about

Note 02 · Mozilla Ventures

Mozilla Ventures

Partners listed: Mohamed Nanabhay; Adam Mullinax

Published stage/check: Global pre-seed/seed; check undisclosed

Stated focus: trustworthy AI, security and privacy, healthy communities

What the firm publishes: The firm says its focus includes trustworthy AI, security and privacy, and healthy communities, and that portfolio companies must follow the Mozilla Manifesto.

Questions to verify: Confirm the current check size and review portfolio conflicts involving data rights.

Source status: Firm pages only

Sources: mozilla.vc/about · mozilla.vc/our-team

Note 03 · Bloomberg Beta

Bloomberg Beta

Partners listed: Roy Bahat; Karin Klein; James Cham

Published stage/check: Very early; usually $500k–$1m; Bay Area/NY/North America

Stated focus: early stage, “companies that make business work better”

What the firm publishes: The firm publishes an operating manual, investment terms, a conflict policy, harm questions, and a founder escalation route.

Questions to verify: Bloomberg is the sole LP (limited partner, the fund's money source). Ask how the fund handles independence and conflicts involving publishing or data.

Source status: Firm pages and public firm documents only

Sources: bloombergbeta.com · Operating Manual · Investment Documents

Note 04 · Precursor Ventures

Precursor Ventures

Partners listed: Charles Hudson

Published stage/check: Up to $500k pre-seed/seed; North America; no traction threshold

Stated focus: “a generalist firm that invests in known and unknown areas of software and hardware”

What the firm publishes: The firm describes a people-over-product approach, support for first-time founders, diversity, patience, and follow-on reserves.

Questions to verify: Ask how 30 to 40 new deals a year affects partner time and review publisher and music portfolio overlap.

Source status: Firm pages only

Sources: philosophy · Charles Hudson · portfolio

Note 05 · Union Square Ventures

Union Square Ventures

Partners listed: Nick Grossman; Michael Mignano; Akhil Ramgopal (AI Lead)

Published stage/check: Seed/Series A; global; usually leads/co-leads; check undisclosed

Stated focus: networks at “the edge of large markets”; avoiding gatekeepers, broadening access

What the firm publishes: The firm publishes theses on networks, protocols, open source, fewer gatekeepers, broader access, and ways for people and organizations to work together.

Questions to verify: Review the large creator and platform portfolio for overlap and ask how conflicts are handled.

Source status: Firm pages only

Sources: usv.com/about · people · companies

Note 06 · Fifty Years

Fifty Years

Partners listed: Seth Bannon; Ela Madej; D. Scott Phoenix

Published stage/check: Pre-seed/seed; North America/Europe GTM (go-to-market); check undisclosed

Stated focus: pre-seed and seed, “sector agnostic but we like deep tech”; climate, bio, health, space

What the firm publishes: The firm rejects a shareholder-value-only framing and states a positive-impact, long-horizon thesis.

Questions to verify: Confirm whether the company meets the firm's deep-tech bar and review dual-use portfolio conflicts.

Source status: Firm pages only

Sources: our way · team · home

Note 07 · Collaborative Fund

Collaborative Fund

Partners listed: Craig Shapiro; Sophie Bakalar

Published stage/check: Current stage/check undisclosed

Stated focus: companies “at the intersection of for-profit & for-good”

What the firm publishes: The firm publishes a for-profit/for-good thesis and its “Villain Test” for impact it considers compatible with business incentives.

Questions to verify: Ask for the founder-conduct and conflict process, then review platform, labor, and data portfolio overlap.

Source status: Firm pages only; no public founder-conduct process found in this pass

Sources: about · Villain Test

Note 08 · Better Ventures

Better Ventures

Partners listed: Lyndsey Boucherle; Rick Moss

Published stage/check: Leads/co-leads pre-seed/seed; $500k–$1m; Oakland

Stated focus: breakthrough science and technology with measurable impact at scale

What the firm publishes: B Lab lists Better Ventures as a Certified B Corporation. The firm says every investment addresses a UN Sustainable Development Goal and publishes annual impact metrics and a conduct policy.

Questions to verify: Confirm the stakeholder outcome and reporting requirements; the published thesis is less specific about digital rights.

Source status: Firm pages plus B Lab's certification directory, checked 22 August 2026

Sources: about · code of conduct · portfolio · B Lab directory

Note 09 · Kapor Capital

Kapor Capital

Partners listed: Brian Dixon; Batul Joffrey

Published stage/check: Pre-seed/seed after product built/deployed; US impact eligibility

Stated focus: tech-driven early stage “closing gaps of access” in low-income communities and communities of colour in the US

What the firm publishes: The firm publishes an impact screen, its GIVE commitment, an investment process, and impact reports.

Questions to verify: Confirm eligibility for companies serving low-income and underrepresented US communities, along with the reporting obligations.

Source status: Firm pages, including firm-published impact reports

Sources: how we invest · who we are · impact reports

Note 10 · General Catalyst

General Catalyst

Partners listed: Hemant Taneja; Alex Tran

Published stage/check: Create/Seed/Grow; multi-office; check undisclosed

Stated focus: responsible AI as a stated investment pillar: fairness, transparency, security, safety

What the firm publishes: The firm describes responsible AI as an investment-process pillar and says it reviews stakeholders, failure modes, and mitigations.

Questions to verify: Review the large multi-stage AI portfolio for overlap and ask for examples where the stated process changed an investment or governance decision.

Source status: Firm pages only

Sources: Responsible AI manifesto · team · capital

Twenty shorter notes

These entries had a shorter review. Source status reports what this pass covered; it does not certify completeness. A public source pass cannot show how a firm behaves in private, so every row names something to verify directly.

Note	Firm	Source status	What to verify
11	Obvious Ventures	Firm pages and B Lab directory	Ask how its ESG policy and grievance channel affect investment and governance decisions.
12	Amplify Partners	Firm pages	Review generative-media and data portfolio overlap; ask about governance and founder references.
13	Afore Capital	Firm pages	Check portfolio overlap before sharing internal information.
14	Responsibly Ventures	Firm pages	Confirm the current check and fund capacity; ask founders how voluntary reporting works in practice.
15	Hustle Fund	Firm pages	Verify portfolio conflicts and treat the published Net Promoter Score and testimonials as firm-selected material.
16	True Ventures	Firm pages	Review creator, social, AI, adtech, and data-rights overlap.
17	First Round Capital	Firm pages; public governance material was thin	Ask how the firm handles governance and generative-media or web-AI conflicts.
18	Impact America Fund	Firm pages	Confirm the traction threshold, eligibility, and required community outcome.
19	Omidyar Network	Firm pages	Confirm whether the relevant vehicle can invest in and lead the proposed round.
20	Future Ventures	Firm page	Confirm that the company fits the frontier-technology mandate and review dual-use conflicts.
21	City Light Capital	Firm pages; public detail was thin	Confirm thematic eligibility, stage, and current check size.
22	Lux Capital	Firm pages	Review defense and AI portfolio overlap and ask for the founder-governance terms.
23	DCVC	Firm pages	Review defense, industrial, and AI overlap and ask for the founder-governance terms.
24	Pear VC	Source pass incomplete	Complete a primary-source, partner, terms, and portfolio-conflict review.
25	Susa Ventures	Source pass incomplete	Verify partner routing, current terms, and portfolio conflicts.
26	Conviction	Firm page	Review direct model, synthetic-media, and agent overlap; ask whether the firm has a published process for weighing harms outside the portfolio company.
27	Floodgate	Source pass incomplete	Verify partner routing, current check, terms, and portfolio conflicts.
28	Prime Coalition / Azolla Ventures	Firm pages	Confirm the climate-only mandate and investment instrument; treat its additionality method as firm-authored.
29	Radical Ventures	Firm pages	Review foundation-model, search, video, and compute overlap; ask for the governance screen.
30	Khosla Ventures	Firm pages plus the cited Surfrider record	Review AI, defense, and governance conflicts, including the decade-long Martins Beach public-access litigation that ended when the US Supreme Court declined review in 2018 (Surfrider).

Reference questions before accepting money

Give me three off-list founders: one breakout, one sideways outcome, and one shutdown.
What ownership, board, veto, pro-rata (the right to keep your ownership share in later rounds), and information rights do you request at this check size?
What happened in your last three bridge or distress decisions?
How do you handle a portfolio conflict discovered before investment versus afterward?
Will you commit in writing to treating creator rights, provenance, privacy, and safety constraints as durable company strategy?
Who owns the relationship if the sponsoring partner leaves?
For impact claims, what metrics, reporting burden, governance rights, and remediation process follow?

Source files

Diligence notes (TXT): August 2026 source pass Diligence notes (CSV): August 2026 source pass

Dated founder diligence notes, not a recommendation. Firm claims are labeled for verification.

Corrections. Any firm named on this page can dispute a row through the site contact form. Material corrections will be published on this page.