This is a weekly feature that runs down the week鈥檚 top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week鈥檚 biggest funding deal roundup here.

Startup investors poured capital into a varied lineup of large rounds this week, targeting sectors including physical AI, biotech, cybersecurity, AI infrastructure and fintech. By far the largest financing of the week was a $1.7 billion round for founder 鈥檚 physical AI startup, , followed by sizable investments for 3D AI model developer and battery technology company .

1. , $1.7B, physical AI: Atoms, the physical AI startup founded by founder , raised $1.7 billion in a funding round led by . Kalanick touted the Los Angeles-based company鈥檚 vision as 鈥渁bout the coming industrial revolution where large industrial economic sectors get completely digitized.鈥�

2. , $400M, AI for 3D: Silicon Valley-based Meshy AI, a startup developing foundation models for AI-powered 3D generation, closed on $400 million in Series B funding at a $1.5 billion valuation. Lead backers include , and , per 小蓝视频色情网页版 data.

3. , $300M, battery technology: Battery technology company Sila secured $300 million in a new round led by and . The Alameda, California, company will use the funding to expand its silicon anode plant in Moses Lake, Washington.

4. , $300M, inference technology: Etched, a co-designer of chips, racks, software and manufacturing methods for use in frontier models, picked up $300 million in Series C funding. led the round, which set a $10 billion pre-money valuation for the San Jose, California-based company.

5. , $180M, fintech: Augustus, a startup aimed at providing financial institutions around the world direct access to dollar accounts, secured $180 million in Series B funding. led the round, which set a $1 billion valuation for the San Francisco-based company.

6. , $160M, defense tech: Cathedral, a startup aimed at expanding U.S. military cyber capabilities, reportedly $160 million with backing from Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. The Washington, D.C.-based startup was reportedly founded by a 鈥媡eam of former DOGE employees.

7. , $130M, biotech: Crystalys Therapeutics, a biotech developing therapies for people living with gout, closed an oversubscribed $130 million Series B round. led the financing for the San Diego-based company.

8. , $120M, healthcare software: San Francisco-based Candid Health, developer of a revenue cycle management platform for the healthcare industry, landed $120 million in Series D funding led by .

9. , $100M, cybersecurity: Glow, a Palo Alto, California-based AI-powered endpoint security startup, launched from stealth and announced it has raised $180 million to date, of which, per 小蓝视频色情网页版, $100 million comes from its newest financing. Lead backers include Sequoia Capital, , , and .

10. , $75M, cybersecurity: Boston-based Neo Security, a startup working on an agentic software control platform for enterprises, picked up $100 million in a new round led by and Andreessen Horowitz.

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the 小蓝视频色情网页版 database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of July 18-24. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

Illustration:

Looking broader into the entire market, I can see how this makes a lot of sense. Companies are becoming increasingly uneasy about where critical infrastructure and sensitive data live. AI fraud is getting better. Voice cloning is becoming more convincing. Vibe coding is allowing less experienced developers to build faster, but not always more securely. Quantum computing is still over the horizon, but serious companies are already thinking about what it may mean for encryption and long-term data protection.

For the past decade, cloud migration was treated as the obvious strategy. It gave companies speed, scale and lower upfront costs. Startups could launch without buying servers. Enterprises could modernize without rebuilding their own infrastructure.

That logic still holds. But we are witnessing an interesting shift where progress is happening so fast, security cannot keep up, thus creating an uneasy feeling causing decision-makers to revert back to older, and perhaps safer perceived strategies.

Here are three trends that I believe are pushing on-prem back into the limelight.

AI fraud is changing the security conversation

In many cases, cloud providers are more secure than what a company could build internally. The issue is that thanks to AI, attackers are becoming more sophisticated, and quick. AI makes phishing more polished, fake invoices more believable, and voice impersonation harder to detect. A call that sounds like the CFO or CEO asking for a payment approval is no longer far-fetched.

That changes how companies think about exposure. The attack surface is not only servers. It is identity systems, SaaS tools, APIs, employee workflows, permissions, contractors and support portals.

For sensitive systems such as communications, payments, identity and customer data, control becomes more valuable. On-prem does not guarantee security. But it can reduce dependency on outside platforms and give companies clearer ownership over the systems they cannot afford to compromise.

Enterprise AI may favor private infrastructure

Cloud AI APIs are excellent for testing. A company can launch a pilot quickly without buying GPUs, managing models, or hiring a large infrastructure team.

But enterprise AI is moving into production. That changes both the economics and the risk.

The most useful enterprise AI applications require proprietary data: contracts, source code, customer records, financial reports, support tickets, security logs, medical files and internal communications. This is the data that gives AI business value. It is also the data companies are most careful with.

For these use cases, on-prem or private AI infrastructure becomes more attractive. The model can run closer to the data. Access can be controlled more tightly. Retention, compliance and audit requirements become easier to manage.

There is also a cost angle. Token pricing is convenient in a pilot, but expensive at scale. When thousands of employees or customers use AI every day, paying per query can become a serious recurring cost. For stable, high-volume workloads, owning or controlling the infrastructure may be cheaper than renting every interaction forever.

Quantum risk is making long-term data protection more strategic

Quantum computing is not breaking enterprise encryption today. But the risk is already part of serious security planning.

The concern is that the minute quantum becomes commercial, all encrypted data sitting in the cloud will be transparent. No existing encryption will hold against a quantum computer. That matters most for companies holding long-life sensitive data: banks, healthcare providers, telecom companies, governments, defense-related organizations and infrastructure providers.

Regardless of whether or not on-prem is the best solution for all this, it is perceived as such. Hence, I believe it will drive higher demand for the legacy on-prem strategy. This early shift is also an opportunity, but that鈥檚 for another article.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies, investors, CEOs and boards, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A. He is a guest contributor to 小蓝视频色情网页版 News and a university lecturer on strategy, finance and entrepreneurship. Learn more at and connect with him on .听

Photo by on .

In 2026, conversations about Black founders and venture capital have focused on access to funding. But as AI reshapes startup economics, the bigger challenge is no longer simply getting a first check, it’s raising enough capital at the seed stage to successfully reach Series A.

AI has fundamentally lowered the cost of building software companies. Founders can launch products faster, automate operations and accomplish with five employees what once required teams of 30. Yet while AI has reduced the cost of building a startup, it has not reduced the cost of scaling one. Companies still need resources to acquire customers, hire experienced talent, invest in go-to-market strategies, and generate the revenue and growth metrics institutional investors expect before leading a Series A round.

For Black founders, who continue to receive a disproportionately small share of venture capital, the inability to secure fully funded seed rounds has become one of the greatest barriers to building venture-scale companies.

AI is making seed capital more valuable, not less

One of the biggest misconceptions about AI is that startups simply need less money. In reality, AI has shifted when capital matters most. Because startups can now build products more efficiently, investors are increasingly rewarding founders who demonstrate real traction instead of polished ideas. Seed funding is no longer financing an experiment, it is financing proof.

That means founders need enough capital to move beyond building a product and toward building a business. Today’s Series A investors are looking for recurring revenue, customer retention, capital efficiency and repeatable growth. Those milestones require time, execution and sufficient capital.

The startups that reach them are increasingly those that raised enough capital early to stay focused on customers instead of constantly fundraising.

The numbers tell a stark story

The challenge is particularly acute for Black entrepreneurs. According to 小蓝视频色情网页版 data, U.S. startups with a Black founder or co-founder received just $942 million in venture funding in 2025, only 0.32% of all venture capital invested in the nation. That represents one of the lowest funding shares in years and a dramatic decline from 2021, when Black founders raised $5.2 billion during the post-George Floyd investment surge.

While 2026 has shown encouraging signs, with Black-founded startups raising approximately $643 million by late May, the strongest quarter since mid-2022, the improvement was driven largely by a handful of unusually large financings, including a $350 million AI round. Across the broader ecosystem, Black founders remain significantly underrepresented in venture funding.

The issue isn’t simply that too little capital is available. It’s that many Black founders raise partial seed rounds that leave them without enough operating flexibility to achieve the milestones required for institutional Series A financing.

The real gap is between seed and Series A

Historically, venture capital rewarded bold ideas and rapid expansion. Today’s market rewards disciplined execution. Investors expect startups to demonstrate product-market fit, meaningful revenue growth, and efficient operations before committing Series A capital. That has made the journey between seed and Series A longer and more demanding.

Black founders who raise only enough money to survive often find themselves trapped in a cycle of continuous fundraising. Instead of focusing on customers, product development and hiring, they spend valuable months chasing additional capital just to extend their runway.

In an AI-driven market where product cycles move faster than ever, that lost time can determine whether a startup becomes a category leader or gets left behind.

Oversubscribed seed rounds are a competitive advantage

This is why oversubscribed seed rounds are taking on new importance for Black founders. Traditionally, oversubscription was viewed primarily as a signal of investor demand. Today, it is becoming a strategic advantage.

Additional capital gives Black founders flexibility to weather slower fundraising markets, invest aggressively when opportunities emerge, and continue executing without returning to investors every few months. It also allows founders to pursue growth intentionally rather than reactively.

Capital efficiency remains important, but efficiency is most valuable when paired with enough capital to execute.

The AI economy requires longer vision

The venture industry often celebrates AI for making entrepreneurship more accessible. In many ways, that’s true. The barriers to launching a company have never been lower. But lowering the cost of starting a company does not eliminate the capital required to build an enduring one.

Closing the Series A funding gap is therefore not simply about increasing investment in Black founders. It’s about ensuring founders have enough money to reach the milestones that unlock future institutional capital. That鈥檚 how you create more Black unicorns.

For Black founders, the conversation should no longer focus solely on access to capital. It should focus on whether they have enough capital to compete. In the AI economy, the Black-led companies that endure won’t simply be those that build the fastest, they will be the ones with the resources to keep building long enough to win.

and are the co-founders of (Black Ops VC), an early-stage venture capital firm. Norman is a managing partner at Black Ops VC. He is also the CEO of , an AI-powered market research platform used by industry giants such as and that鈥檚 designed for the media and entertainment spaces to gather audience feedback on video content, and a partner at , an accelerator that provides intense programming, resources and capital to overlooked founders.

Along with serving as general partner at Black Ops VC, Green is the founder and CEO of , an AI-powered CRM and inventory management platform specifically designed for art galleries, dealers, auction houses and collectors.听

Related 小蓝视频色情网页版 query:

Related reading:

• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• 6 Startup Investors On What It Will Take To Fund More Black Founders
• 鈥楾his System Wasn鈥檛 Built For Me鈥�: Black Founders Became Investors To Change Venture Capital

Illustration:

Docter also proved adept at securing funding for research and other projects, a skill that ultimately caught the attention of venture capital firms and led him into the industry 26 years ago.

His technical roots are reflective of Palo Alto, California-based Dell Technologies Capital鈥檚 broader team. Its investors have degrees in fields including electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science and data science, and many have worked at both large technology companies and startups.

That experience shapes the firm鈥檚 affinity for deeply technical founders and its approach to early-stage investing. When evaluating seed and Series A companies, the team focuses heavily on the potential impact of a technology: what problem it solves, what it could disrupt, and how well it works, often before traditional financial metrics become the central consideration.

Since its 2012 inception, Dell Technologies Capital has invested $1.8 billion across the enterprise stack and saw six high-profile exits at the end of 2025 alone.

In this interview with 小蓝视频色情网页版 News, Docter also discussed how AI is reshaping SaaS and why he doesn鈥檛 believe the business model is headed for extinction. He also shared why he thinks distribution may ultimately separate the winners from the losers among AI startups, and more.

The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

小蓝视频色情网页版 News: When you evaluate companies, do they all have to tie into what Dell does?

Docter: Not necessarily. I usually describe it as Dell Technologies Capital having a unique network you don鈥檛 get at any other VC firm. I鈥檓 using my words carefully because I鈥檓 not saying we鈥檙e better. I鈥檓 just saying we鈥檙e unique.

That unique network is that we have access to network and his company network, which has become even more relevant in this AI world but has always been very much in the middle of technology.

We leverage that network in two ways. One is to get another perspective on what鈥檚 going on in the world and understand technology and how it鈥檚 being used. What do Fortune 500 companies want or need? What is asking for? We have that perspective.

If you look at the other side of the coin, those are also the areas where Dell Technologies Capital can best help our portfolio companies. We have this perspective and this network that are really valuable. We can use those to the benefit of our portfolio companies, and that defines our investment philosophy.

classically said, 鈥淚nvest in what you know.鈥� The way I look at it is that we鈥檙e trying to invest in what we know because of who we are, our technical background and our unique network. But if I turn that over, that鈥檚 also where we can help. Invest in what you know, but also in what you can help with.

For founders building deep tech, there鈥檚 a fear of being on the right track, but too early. Some companies have had to wait more than a decade before they really took off. As an investor, how do you evaluate a team that is clearly building technology with incredible potential but is years ahead of the adoption curve? How do you help them survive that stretch of time?

Docter: You asked two questions in one. One is: How do you identify the founders you think can be successful? The second is: How do you keep them alive long enough to get to the finish line?

The answer to the first question hasn鈥檛 changed from how we鈥檝e always thought about it and how venture capital always thinks about it. First and foremost, you鈥檙e really betting on the people. This is a people business. I know you hear that all the time, but you really are betting on the people and the founders.

It鈥檚 not purely about the technical capability of the founders. There鈥檚 definitely an EQ part of the equation, which I think our team is really good at. Our group is good at quickly getting an opinion on a founder and whether he or she is capable. Then we usually spend additional time trying to pressure-test our initial thesis on that founder鈥檚 ability to be agile 鈥� to understand when they鈥檙e wrong and change directions or to be willing to get input from somebody else who might be way less smart than they are but has a different approach or way of thinking about the problem that opens up new avenues.

I think that鈥檚 qualitative. It鈥檚 EQ more than IQ, but a lot of times that determines success. I don鈥檛 think this AI era has changed that. That鈥檚 consistently true.

The answer to the second question is even harder. How do you know if you鈥檙e betting on a deep-tech company and you know going in that this is a five-, seven-, 10-, 15-, or 20-year problem? It鈥檚 really, really hard to sustain that company.

You have to do a bunch of things smartly. You have to make sure you don鈥檛 overspend, because overspending can really kill a startup. You also have to have really good co-investor partners.

We feel like we are part of a venture capital ecosystem, and we always strive to partner and play nicely with others. As Michael says, 鈥淧lay nice but win.鈥� We always try to play nice but win.

It takes a village for these things to work, so it鈥檚 important to have the right constituents and partners around the table who can continue to fund the company for years and years. The timeline is absolutely compressed, so I think it is getting harder for that to happen.

The classic venture playbook often considers first-mover advantage to be everything. But the 鈥渟leeping giants鈥� thesis suggests the second wave 鈥� the companies with the foundational architecture in place when a catalyst like generative AI hits 鈥� may be the ones that win. Is being a first mover still the same advantage it used to be?

Docter: I think it can cut both ways. One of the things we talk about is whether a company is doing category creation 鈥� which means it鈥檚 creating a brand-new category of business or software product that doesn鈥檛 exist today and is going to be huge 鈥� or category disruption, meaning there鈥檚 already a very large category that exists and I鈥檓 going to disrupt it with my technology. I鈥檓 doing something much better, faster, cheaper or stronger.

It鈥檚 important to have a sense of whether a company is doing category disruption or category creation. If you鈥檙e doing category creation, being first means you have to educate everybody. It鈥檚 a heavy lift. It鈥檚 a daunting amount of work, capital and effort that goes into explaining something that doesn鈥檛 currently exist and why it鈥檚 going to be needed in the future.

A lot of times, first-mover advantage isn鈥檛 an advantage there. Category creation is often where the second, third or fourth company hasn鈥檛 had to spend all the effort. They can piggyback off the heavy lifting the first mover had to do.

But in cases of category disruption, I think there鈥檚 value in first-mover advantage. You鈥檙e disrupting a big, existing, multibillion-dollar category and doing something in a new or better way. Being first there is very beneficial.

There鈥檚 a lot of talk about AI agents replacing SaaS models. Do you feel that panic is overhyped? If so, why?

Docter: AI is disruptive to the SaaS world, without a doubt. It鈥檚 disruptive because it will change how software is built and consumed. Maybe even more importantly, it鈥檚 going to change how it鈥檚 priced. The per-seat pricing model is probably outdated and going to die. It鈥檚 going to be priced based on consumption or outcomes.

Everything is disrupted, but I fundamentally don鈥檛 believe all SaaS companies are going to die because of this. I believe the SaaS companies with smart, effective management will look at what AI can do for their businesses, which most already are. They鈥檙e going to adopt it, embrace it, and transform their companies using it. The ones that do will come out the other side as successful companies. They鈥檙e not going to go away.

How they charge and price might be different, but they鈥檙e still going to be the category winner or category leader. Remember that they have some fundamental advantages they can leverage.

One is brand. When I say a big SaaS name, you and I both know it. Pretty much everybody knows 1, and .

They can leverage their brands.

They also have incumbency, meaning they currently have the business. They have customers they鈥檝e sold to for years and years and have long-standing relationships with. If 鈥� and it鈥檚 a big if 鈥� they understand how to embrace the AI transformation that鈥檚 going on and leverage it, there can and will be winners.

There will be winners for sure, or people who come out okay. Without a doubt, there will also be SaaS companies that don鈥檛 make the turn. But is that any different from any other technological or industrial revolution? It鈥檚 always the case that there are a few with good leadership and management who are nimble and agile, even at scale, and they are successful. Others aren鈥檛.

As early-stage founders shift from pay-per-user to pay-per-outcome or other new models, how should they think about their go-to-market strategies and still seem attractive to investors?

Docter: One of the biggest questions we ask early-stage AI founders is: 鈥淲hat is your distribution strategy?鈥� That basically means: How are you going to go to market or get distribution for your product?

Today, that is a harder problem. In terms of differentiating yourself as a startup, I would say its importance has grown.

There will be many people with very good or disruptive technology. The winners are almost certainly going to be the people who figure out distribution first, best or fastest.

If I tie that back to the SaaS question, it鈥檚 clear that some SaaS companies won’t be able to transform themselves organically. They鈥檙e going to need to undergo an inorganic transformation, meaning they鈥檒l have to buy or acquire something that can help their company transform.

If you think about what I just said about early-stage AI startup founders, they need distribution. How do you get distribution? By partnering with an incumbent that has a brand in the space you鈥檙e trying to sell into, sell adjacent to or disrupt.

I think there is a recipe here for SaaS companies to be in acquisition mode for the next six, 12, 18, or 24 months to help transform their companies and make the curve. The incumbent can acquire technology that would take too long to build, and the startup gets distribution that would be much harder for it to build.

Dell Technologies Capital had incredible exit momentum late last year 鈥� including massive liquidity events like , and 鈥� right in the middle of a broader venture liquidity drought. What did you see in those specific businesses or the macro environment that allowed DTC to return capital so effectively when everyone else was stuck?

Docter: I鈥檇 love to say we saw it all coming, but the reality is we can鈥檛 time the market. It just doesn鈥檛 work that way. But we feel lucky that things are lining up the way they have. Netskope, Rivos, SingleStore, and recently, and .

We just try to stay really focused on backing great founders with deeply technical ideas. We鈥檙e investing early and know that sometimes it can take years for the market to fully catch up to what鈥檚 being built. You can see that pretty clearly across the outcomes you asked about. Netskope and SingleStore were at it for more than a decade, building products and businesses until the market met them.

Rivos was a little different. The founders had a strong point of view that a shift in computing was coming fast as AI workloads started to put real pressure on data center infrastructure. They were right and got to a significant exit in just under five years.

We really try not to over-rotate on timing and instead stay consistent in who we back and how we invest.

You鈥檝e talked about looking at startup traction to see whether revenue comes from an “innovation pilot budget” or a “core engineering production budget.” For a startup trying to raise its Series A or B right now, what evidence do they need to show you to prove their AI revenue is sticky and not just experimental hype?

Docter: The biggest question we are asking ourselves today when we talk about making any Series A or B investment is 鈥淚s their revenue durable?鈥� Everyone knows about the complete shift away from the SaaS seat-pricing model.

But what we鈥檙e also seeing is a huge shift away from recurring revenue to something I鈥檓 calling聽 鈥渞e-occuring鈥� revenue. I know that鈥檚 not really a word. What I mean by 鈥渞e-occuring鈥� is that, instead of showing multiyear contracts, a lot of revenue is uncontracted, meaning customers are not signing up for annual or multiyear deals. But they are signing up for projects, sometimes very large projects.

My suggestion to startups looking to raise substantial rounds is to show how customers engage and keep coming back for more. The ability to say 鈥渨e got our first deal with in October, and they did a second deal with us in January, and we already did our third deal in March鈥� is very powerful.

Given DTC鈥檚 unique position, how do you advise founders to leverage a corporate venture capital relationship differently than a traditional institutional VC, especially when navigating a rapidly shifting market like this one?

Docter: The answer really is that the investor type is irrelevant. The one thing founders should universally do with every investor on their cap table is ask for more help. 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 get what you don鈥檛 ask for.鈥� I know that鈥檚 an old saying, but it absolutely holds true.

So many founders, especially first-time founders, are reticent about asking for help or advice. Don鈥檛 be. Play to your investors’ strengths and ask them for the help they can deliver. Whether it鈥檚 management advice, introductions to decision makers at Fortune 500 companies, or access to channel sales. Ask!

Related 小蓝视频色情网页版 query:

Related reading:

• Dell Technologies Capital On The Next Generation Of AI 鈥� And The Data Fueling It
• Corporate Venture Capital Is Splitting In Two

Illustration:

But then you ask the only question that really matters: 鈥淲hy are the numbers improving?鈥�

That is where the actual strategic discussion begins.

Was growth improving because the company found a repeatable sales motion, or because it offered large discounts? Was retention strong because the product became deeply embedded in customer workflows, or because renewals had not yet come under pressure? Was gross margin structurally strong, or were infrastructure costs simply being pushed into the future?

Metrics and KPIs are useful. They give us a snapshot of the business. But they do not shine a light on strategy. They are the result of strategy 鈥� or sometimes the result of a lack of it.

Here are three areas where founders and boards should look deeper into unit economics and the strategies behind them.

LTV/CAC: Look at the quality of acquisition

LTV/CAC is one of the most important SaaS metrics. A strong ratio usually suggests the company can acquire customers efficiently and retain them profitably. But two companies can both report a 4x LTV/CAC ratio and still be very different businesses.

One may reach that ratio because it has strong positioning, low acquisition costs through partner programs, viral marketing, high retention through workflow integrations, and expansion revenue from additional products or services. Another may reach the same reported ratio because it charges higher upfront prices, assumes a longer customer lifetime, or has not yet seen churn show up in the data. On paper, both look efficient. In practice, one may have a healthy acquisition engine while the other may be relying on assumptions that still need to be proven.

When reviewing LTV/CAC, boards should ask:

• Is the company clearly positioned?
• Is it focused on the right customer segment?
• Are customers coming from scalable channels or expensive paid acquisition?
• Is pricing strong enough to justify the sales effort?
• Do we have cross-sell and upsell opportunities baked into the offering?
• Is the payback period reasonable?

A weak LTV/CAC ratio is not always a sales problem. Sometimes it is a positioning problem, a pricing problem or a market-selection problem.

GRR and NRR: Understand why customers stay

GRR and NRR are critical because they show whether customer revenue stays and expands. But they do not explain why customers stay or expand. Strong dollar retention usually comes from becoming embedded in the customer鈥檚 workflow.

The product delivers fast time-to-value, integrates with important systems, becomes part of a daily process, and becomes difficult to replace.

That is when expansion becomes easier. More seats, more usage, more modules, more geographies, more products. This is why setting a board goal to 鈥渋ncrease NRR鈥� is not enough. The real discussion should be around onboarding, integrations, product depth, customer success, pricing tiers and expansion paths.

Dollar retention improves when the product becomes more valuable, more embedded and more scalable within each customer.

Rule of 40 and Rule of 4: Check the quality of growth

ARR growth matters, but the board should ask what kind of growth it is. The Rule of 40 shows whether the company is balancing growth and profitability.

But a better number can come from real efficiency, or from cutting too deeply into product, customer success and future growth. The Rule of 4 adds a simple durability check: ARR growth divided by annual customer churn should be above four. If it is low, growth may be hiding a leaking bucket.

So the board should ask two questions:

Are we becoming more efficient, or simply underinvesting?

Are we growing on top of a loyal customer base, or replacing customers we should have kept?

Let鈥檚 use these metrics to dive deeper into the core long-term strategy.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies, investors, CEOs and boards, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A. He is a guest contributor to 小蓝视频色情网页版 News and a university lecturer on strategy, finance and entrepreneurship. Learn more at and connect with him on .

Illustration:

This is a weekly feature that runs down the week鈥檚 top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week鈥檚 biggest funding deal roundup here.

U.S. startups announced sizable funding rounds at a steady clip during a truncated holiday week, with energy and AI leading the way.

Houston-based energy startup secured the biggest round, a $1.75 billion strategic financing, followed by , a developer of infrastructure for companies running open source AI models, and , a provider of compliance tools for enterprises.

Other big rounds were for companies focused on therapeutics, homebuilding, and even lacrosse.

1. , $1.75B, energy: Houston-based Joulent, a provider of energy infrastructure focused on the demands of artificial intelligence and other compute-intensive industries, raised $1.75 billion in a strategic investment backed by through its arm.

2. , $800M, AI infrastructure: Together AI, developer of an infrastructure layer for companies running open source AI models, secured $800 million in Series C financing. led the round, which set an $8.3 billion post-money valuation for the San Francisco-based startup.

3. , $180M, compliance: LeapXpert, a provider of tools for tracking enterprise communications for compliance needs, closed on $180 million in growth financing. led the financing for the New York-based company.

4. , $135M, AI software development: Redwood City, California-based 8090 Solutions, developer of a platform for building enterprise software with coordinated AI agents under human-led oversight,聽 picked up $135 million in a round led by 1. The company, founded in 2024, counts prominent startup investor as co-founder and CEO.

5. , $126M, biotech: Boston-based Beeline Medicines, a startup focused on precision therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, secured $126 million in Series A extension funding backed by , and . The financing follows a previously disclosed $300 million Series A.

6. (tied) , $100 million, professional sports: The Premier Lacrosse League, a men’s professional lacrosse league in North America, closed a $100 million Series E financing round led by and . New York-based PLL said the deal represents the largest capital raise in the history of professional lacrosse.

6. (tied) , $100M, video-based AI: Twelve Labs, a San Francisco-based startup developing AI systems trained on video archives, raised $100 million in a Series B round co-led by and .

8. , $95M, AI for homebuilding: Higharc, a developer of AI-enabled tools for designing homes and managing workflows around homebuilding, picked up $95 million in Series C funding. led the financing for the Durham, North Carolina-based company.

9. , $85M, biotech: Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Flare Therapeutics, a startup targeting transcription factors to develop treatments for cancer and other ailments, raised $85 million in Series C funding led by and .

10. , $65M, AI privacy: Venice, developer of a platform enabling private, surveillance-free access to a wide array of AI models, secured $65 million in Series A funding led by . The round set a $1 billion valuation for the 2-year-old Sheridan, Wyoming-based startup.

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the 小蓝视频色情网页版 database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of June 27-July 2. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

Illustration:

This is a weekly feature that runs down the week鈥檚 top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week鈥檚 biggest funding deal roundup here.

This week, most of the largest U.S. startup funding rounds centered around the sector one would suspect: artificial intelligence. This was true for the week鈥檚 largest venture financing, a $1.5 billion Series F for AI inference technology provider , as well as a majority of rounds in the Top 10. Beyond that, the next-biggest area for startup funding was biotech.

1. , $1.5B, AI inference technology: Baseten, a provider of systems software to run AI applications workloads, raised $1.5 billion in Series F funding, its fourth fundraise in 18 months. , , , and co-led the round, which set a $13 billion valuation for the San Francisco-based company.

2. , $1B, digital marketing: AppsFlyer, a San Francisco-based provider of data analytics with digital marketing as a core use case, reportedly secured more than $1 billion in a Series E funding round at a post-money valuation of $2.7 billion. Backers reportedly include , , and .

3. , $650M, AI inference technology: San Francisco-based Groq closed on $650 million in new funding led by and that it says will be used to scale its AI inference cloud technology and infrastructure. The investment comes just over six months after an acquihire-type transaction in which hired away its founder and key team members and licensed its technology.

4. , $330M, ophthalmic therapies: Ollin Biosciences, a developer of therapies for vision-threatening diseases, picked up $330 million in Series B funding. and led the financing for the Austin-based company.

5. , $320M, foundational AI: General Intuition, developer of a foundational AI model based on gameplay, secured $320 million in Series A funding at a $2.3 billion valuation. led the financing for the New York-based company, while backers including and participated.

6. , $250M, government software: Peregrine Technologies, provider of a platform used by public safety agencies and other government entities, secured $250 million in Series D financing. , , , , and led the financing, which set a $6.8 billion valuation for the San Francisco-based company.

7. (tied) , $200M, risk intelligence: Palo Alto, California-based Quantifind, developer of a risk intelligence platform for financial crime detection and national security operations, closed on $200 million in growth financing led by .

7. (tied) , $200M, foundational AI: San Francisco-based Mirendil, a frontier lab building systems that excel at AI R&D, says it raised a seed round of $200 million led by and . The startup also counts as a backer.

9. (tied) , $190M, AI infrastructure: AI networking infrastructure startup Upscale AI raised $190 million in Series A extension funding, bringing total financing to $500 million. led the round, which set a $2 billion valuation for the Santa Clara, California-based company.

9. (tied) , $190M, biotech: San Francisco-based Osanni Bio, a therapeutics platform focused on ophthalmic therapies and other treatments, secured $190 million in Series B funding led by .

Large non-US deals:

The week also brought some large European rounds:

, $569M, defense tech: Berlin-based defense tech startup Stark reportedly raised $569 million in a financing led by and .

, $546M, insurance: Paris-based health insurance startup Alan secured $460 million in new investment in primary and secondary equity led by .

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the 小蓝视频色情网页版 database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of June 18-26. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

Illustration:

It used to be that if you invested in SaaS, you slept well at night. Returns were predictable because the business model was subscription-based and incredibly scalable: build a horizontal cloud-based platform to target as wide a market as possible, charge per seat and grow by expanding the user base.

1, and their peers returned billions to investors on that model. But now, due to AI, where AI agents are replacing humans as the user (through what the industry calls 鈥渉eadless鈥� models) and upending the per-seat model, the SaaS market has lost its predictability. January’s $300 billion single-session wipeout is a leading indicator that the old SaaS model has passed its peak.

Investors are retrenching and trying to predict what鈥檚 next as the three frontier AI companies vault into the public markets at multitrillion-dollar valuations. We would argue that these infrastructure platforms enable the next wave of software innovation: AI-native software that automates and enables the $2 trillion white-collar services market.

Generic, horizontal SaaS, as we know it, is a declining legacy model (like on-premise software before it), but investors still have reason to be optimistic about the software market. That鈥檚 because AI-native software is going after a much larger opportunity than SaaS ever claimed and the productivity gains and value creation opportunities are unprecedented. The target markets are vertical industry focused and highly specialized, priced differently and built on proprietary data moats that didn’t exist five years ago.

Death of per-seat pricing

小蓝视频色情网页版 has always been priced on a per-seat basis. That model evaporates the moment AI agents generate most of the usage. A company that once needed 100 CRM licenses for its sales operations team may soon need just 50.

Technology companies facing that reality have to choose a new path forward beyond connecting people鈥檚 workflow: perform and charge for the actual work done (usage) or based on outcomes (ROI). A legal AI platform charges per contract drafted, doing the work of a lawyer. Here the software charges for some fraction of the labor it replaces. A spend management AI-native software application can take a percentage of overages found or a chargeback software application could take a fee on the value of the chargebacks it successfully recovers.

The next era of AI-native software runs on automation and performing knowledge-worker actions, not connecting workers or workflows. These solutions reach beyond IT budgets to much larger labor budgets. The companies that adapt will build faster, deliver more value and command a premium for it.

Horizontal is a liability

Generic horizontal SaaS is the most vulnerable to this changing market. If an entire product is a wrapper around a workflow that an AI agent can now handle autonomously, the value proposition may be greatly reduced. Form builders, project management platforms, SMB-focused CRMs, off-the-shelf social schedulers: these categories are compressing fast and may not recover.

The defensible positions now belong to vertical niche specialists, companies that have built what we call the three 鈥淒s.鈥� Distribution through a recurring and longstanding customer base.

Domain expertise specialized to operate in regulated or complex industries. Proprietary data that drives decision-making and is closely held by customers and inaccessible to frontier models.

When your product is built around the specific workflows, terminology and compliance requirements of one industry, ending a vendor relationship is less about migrating data and more about rebuilding a complex web of experiences, corner cases and historical knowledge. Customers stay not because they’re trapped, but because the cost of retraining, reconfiguring and finding a vendor who understands their world is too high.

The more deeply a company understands the regulatory environment, the operational constraints, and the institutional logic of a specific industry and a specific customer, the harder it becomes to displace.

Legal contract repositories, insurance underwriting criteria, bank loan performance data; once embedded in a model and a workflow, these assets create high switching costs that dwarf anything a generic SaaS contract ever produced. You can export a Salesforce contact list. You cannot export your underwriting logic.

People are part of the product

The model that will define the next decade of B2B software deliberately combines software and services, what practitioners call Human-in-the-Loop, or HITL: pairing agentic intelligence with human judgment at the points in a workflow where it matters most.

Legal, healthcare, cybersecurity, construction, financial services, defense; these verticals are defined by high stakes, regulatory complexity and contextual judgment. Routine and repetitive tasks may be mostly automated, but some portion of decisions will always require human judgement because the cost of errors or omissions is prohibitive.

This solutions-centric customer relationship changes what a software company fundamentally is. When a vendor is embedded in how a client operates, handling onboarding, workflow design, optimization and quality control, it accumulates something pure SaaS rarely achieved: proprietary data, domain expertise and institutional trust. Every client engagement makes the product smarter and each deployment deepens the moat.

This is why the most durable software businesses of the next decade will be built inside verticals, not across them. The companies that understand this will stop treating services as a cost of implementation and start treating them as a compounding asset.

A bigger market than SaaS ever was

Even capturing a small fraction of what projects is a $6 trillion annual productivity opportunity from AI transformation dwarfs the traditional enterprise software market. AI-native vertical platforms no longer just compete for the technology budget, they also compete for the labor budget, the compliance budget and the risk budget. That’s a much bigger pie and a more strategic partnership conversation than any per-seat SaaS vendor ever got to have.

The winners won’t be companies that bolt AI onto existing SaaS products, or that add a services layer as an afterthought. They will be the firms with true subject matter expertise that happen to run on AI-native software. They will collapse the boundary between software and services entirely, building businesses whose value compounds with every customer relationship and every data asset they accumulate.

The AI-native software company is a fundamentally different kind of company than the SaaS era ever produced. And it’s worth considerably more.

is the founder, managing partner and chair of the investment committee at . He launched Lateral with a strategy to allocate first institutional growth capital to independent, owner-operated middle-market businesses underserved by typical buyout firms. Previously, he served as a managing director at , a venture capital and growth equity firm that has invested in more than 300 companies including , , , , and . De Silva also previously co-founded , a marketplace for construction equipment that was sold to for nearly $800 million. He received an MBA from , a master of philosophy from the , and an undergraduate degree from .

Related 小蓝视频色情网页版 query:

Illustration:

“Silicon Valley has done very well with software, but while software was eating the world, they forgot about silicon,” Barrett told 小蓝视频色情网页版 News in an interview.

The firm recently closed a $475 million fund focused on investing in deep-tech startups at seed and Series A. In the decade-plus since its founding, it has built its investment thesis around the idea that breakthroughs in science and engineering 鈥� not just software 鈥� would create the next generation of valuable companies.

With demand surging for compute, semiconductors and energy, Barrett argues the rest of the industry is now catching up. “We’ve been at it for more than a decade,” he said. “In recent years, as AI is eating software, people are scrambling back to recognize that the energy, semiconductors and infrastructure they operate on all need capital too. We’ve been operating in that regime for a very long time.”

Barrett is originally from Australia and came to Silicon Valley in the 1980s. He’s been coding for 50 years, he said, after developing an early and deep respect for science and engineering as the child of two engineers. His childhood was steeped in punch cards, draftsmen and drawings of control systems and machinery, he said.

鈥淪cience lets you follow breadcrumbs from prehistoric plumage to semiconductors. One principle can be applied somewhere orthogonal and create extraordinary value,鈥� Barrett said in a lengthy interview with 小蓝视频色情网页版 News.

Barrett went on to found video game developer , joined to build the entertainment browser acquired by , and was subsequently CTO at prior to co-founding Playground Global in 2015.

Playground Global operates a lab in the former Palo Alto Research Building in Palo Alto, California. The location hosts 350 people, including those working at its portfolio companies and others with adjacencies working from the lab.

On a recent visit to the warehouse, I saw various models of robots, materials for aerospace construction, and a model of building powerful lasers to increase the speed of semiconductor manufacturing. The quantum computing startup , a Playground portfolio company, moved in when it had three employees and moved out when it reached 90.

The firm has four general partners. Along with Barrett, they are , the former CEO of and who architected CPUs at Intel that helped computing take off at scale, and who joined the Playground team last year as a general partner specializing in semiconductors; , who has made many investments in biotech, including ; and co-founder , who led the investment in .

What follows are highlights from a wide-ranging interview with Barrett that covered topics including sovereign technology, the need to invest in companies that operate on the physical plane, and why he believes putting data centers in space is stupid.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Gen茅 Teare: What is the thesis for Playground Global?

Peter Barrett: It is about reducing new results in science and engineering into commercial and societal value. That means operating at the boundary between computation and the physical world. We are very interested in new capabilities of computation driving civilization forward, and that inevitably means operating in the same physical plane that we live in.

We’re seeing in our data a huge amount of funding going into space, semiconductors and robotics. It seems as if the whole venture industry has pivoted to this much broader array of companies. Do you see that as a good thing?

Barrett: We lost a lot when people weren’t investing in things that strike us as important. It is good that there is capital chasing the things we care about and that have real consequence.

You can鈥檛 spin up a deep-tech practice overnight. You still need domain expertise. You still need to understand why investing in nuclear reactors is good, and why data centers in space are preposterous.

Silicon Valley hasn’t been very efficient with much of the capital it’s deployed over the past decade or so. But I do think it’s good that people recognize that software may be eating the world, but you can’t eat software. We have to operate in the physical layer.

Do you think Silicon Valley gets more efficient?

Barrett: We need to do the work. You develop the instincts and the platform to deploy capital efficiently into these places.

It’s important that people recognize there’s this unprecedented funnel of technical change. AI is an early indicator of it, but we have technologies like quantum. We know how to produce computation using things beyond transistors and semiconductors.

We’re scratching the surface in terms of AI models. We’re right at the beginning of an explosion and renaissance in materials science driven by things like quantum computing.

Now would be the time 鈥� and candidly, I feel the imperative 鈥� that anywhere there is science and capital, it needs to be turned into value, especially in liberal democracies, because the despots are doing a pretty good job of it. It’s incumbent on us to stay ahead.

We’re in the DOS age of AI. We’re scratching the surface, both in terms of the models we make and the hardware we run them on.

Now would be the time for people to write checks into things that are sensible and valuable. We spent a lot of time on NFTs. How are we doing with cancer? How are we doing with our most difficult challenges in terms of healing and feeding the world?

There are lots of new degrees of freedom that could take capital and turn it into value.

Do you think deep tech fits the venture thesis, despite the long time horizons and the amount of capital it requires?

Barrett: The long time horizons certainly exist. If you’re building PsiQuantum, we’re building million-qubit quantum machines. That takes billions of dollars and a decadal effort.

The corollary is that we’ve had hardware exits in two years. The timelines for hardware aren’t necessarily that different from software.

Therapeutics naturally take a longer time, because of clinical trials. But we’ve also seen exits there. One of our companies tested half a million drugs in a single animal and created a new corpus of AI input for building models to create therapeutics. That’s not a decadal effort 鈥� that’s a handful of years before exit.

We try to craft a portfolio that’s a mix of tactical and strategic. Some of these companies get to hundreds of millions in revenue within a few years. Others, like PsiQuantum or , may take a decade to reach full entitlement. That’s part of portfolio construction.

The biology company you mentioned 鈥斅爓hat’s its name?

Barrett: . It did the largest pharma deal of its kind last year with . The deal could be worth $2 billion on the back end.

It’s a unique mechanism to create giant AI training sets by using physical systems 鈥� using animals and in vivo testing to create that dataset. It affords the ChatGPT and biology moment, where you can have large enough training sets to build big models.

You describe the firm as investing somewhere between improbable and impossible. Are there companies that really fit that thesis when you first met them?

Barrett: When we first met PsiQuantum, they were talking about building a machine which was 10,000x the state of the art. Using then-current technologies, it would have been the size of the Sierra Nevadas.

They required exponential improvements in both hardware and software, and they’ve achieved both. It’s the size of a warehouse, not a laptop.

The work we’re doing in biology, materials, quantum algorithms and superconducting logic 鈥� which will replace transistors and semiconductors 鈥� all of these things sound like science fiction, but they’re much closer to improbable. In many cases they’re entirely practical before we invest; they just seem improbable to those unfamiliar with the domain.

There are things that are not impossible but are still really dumb 鈥� data centers in space, small modular reactors (SMRs), or fusion. The physics may work, but the economics don’t, or the timelines don’t align.

I’m disappointed we haven’t invested in anything that turned out to be more impossible than we thought. None of our portfolio companies failed because the technology didn’t work.

We’ve had capitalization failures. We flew hydrogen planes. We’ve built things that were thought to be virtually impossible that turned out to be straightforward. They may have missed their market or may have been unable to raise the capital to continue.

I want to do something where the technology doesn’t work, and we鈥檝e yet to do one of those.

Is there a company you missed out on where it looked impossible and you wish you’d invested?

Barrett: I wish I hadn’t taken ‘s word for it when was a non-profit.

We haven鈥檛 missed many. As the roadmap developed, we wish we had been earlier in a couple of categories that are really interesting. But overall, we haven’t missed too many.

In which sectors or companies have you invested where the time horizons have shortened due to AI?

Barrett: Adding Pat Gelsinger to the team reflects an interest in scaling semiconductors along various dimensions, including energy efficiency and how power is delivered.

We do everything from nuclear reactors all the way through to transmission, energy conversion outside the data center, inside the data center, under the chip, what kinds of chips you鈥檙e running, what models run on top of those chips, what architectures those chips are made from, and what materials those chips are made from.

At every layer of the infrastructure 鈥� optical interconnects, memory systems 鈥� we have a best-in-class company at every point. We built the first AI accelerator a decade ago, and we鈥檝e broadened that to encompass the entire ecosystem, from the creation of electrons to how they expend themselves doing useful software work.

There are bubbly aspects of the current AI moment, but the bubble is being modulated to some degree by the unavailability of energy.

We鈥檙e in the DOS age of AI. LLMs are embarrassingly incompetent compared to what comes next, but we believe in the durability and growth of AI, and are making investments in model architectures and the ways AIs are trained. We see demand for compute, energy and infrastructure continuing to grow.

We have technologies that can reduce general-purpose compute workloads by 100x to 1,000x over state of the art. We believe we know how to make the energy and deliver it. We know how to connect these systems.

So quixotic pursuits like putting data centers in space are unnecessary.

Talking privately to hyperscalers and Fortune 50 companies, they all say there is way more demand for AI in its future incarnation than exists today. It鈥檚 incumbent on us to figure out how to do it 100x, 1,000x or 10,000x more efficiently, because that demand turns into GDP growth and better solutions to our hardest problems.

What are the companies in energy and semiconductors that you are betting on?

Barrett: One example is the wild superconducting logic company . We can make things that are post-semiconductor and post-transistor, with devices that switch five orders of magnitude more efficiently than transistors.

They operate at cryogenic temperatures, but quantum computers do that, and our extreme ultraviolet lithography system does that. The future of computation is cryogenic. Even after you pay to make it cold, you鈥檙e still 100x to 1,000x more energy-efficient on compute.

This technology has been around since last century, but it鈥檚 mainly been used for secure signals intelligence and radar applications. We鈥檙e generalizing it for compute.

Another example is . People talk about SMRs, which are a physics solution to a financial problem, or fusion, which is still decades away. Alva instead uprates the existing nuclear fleet to get hundreds of megawatts out of each unit by replacing 1970s steam generators with a 2020 steam generator.

We can deliver power in a handful of years. No new fuel, no new regulatory path, and a business model that makes sense for operators. We can put gigawatts onto the grid without moving a fence line of an existing reactor and without upgrades to the electricity grid.

We know how to make AI training wildly more efficient. We know how to train different kinds of AI models that we鈥檝e been unable to train.

The last supercomputer at uses something unlike a CPU or GPU to run existing software. We鈥檝e been running software the same way for 70 years, but there are other ways, with dataflow architectures. We have a company doing that 鈥� [].

The degrees of freedom from materials, systems, code and models have never been greater. We鈥檙e exploring all of them. But most require rolling your sleeves up in the physical world.

LLMs feel like brute-forcing something 鈥� like a drunk looking for keys under the streetlight. We鈥檙e pushing more and more into that, and I think that鈥檚 a dead end. We know other ways of moving forward.

Are you seeing new model companies, separate from LLMs, that are going to solve things?

Barrett: Our brains are not LLMs. They鈥檙e not transformers. Transformers are effective, but they are one of a long line of soon-to-be-extinct models that get replaced by something that works better.

That millionfold gap between our brains and GPUs is an architectural gap. Meat is much worse at computation than hardware can be, so biology shouldn鈥檛 be better.

Physics allows a million times a million more efficiency, and we should start chipping away at that.

Intelligence is useful and can be pressed into service against basic things like photosynthesis. Plants were invented by accident of evolution 3 billion years ago. They鈥檙e pretty, but not efficient. They shouldn鈥檛 be green; they should be black. We know how to make photosynthesis twice as efficient, and probably 5x more efficient.

We鈥檙e not stuck with the physical constraints of our technology or of nature. Nature is beautiful, but cobbled together by a process that we can have agency over.

All the materials that operate our civilization are discovered, not designed, because we can鈥檛 design things we can鈥檛 simulate. Our best computers cannot simulate the quantum nature of nature. That鈥檚 about to change.

We鈥檙e stumbling around in the dark, relying on serendipity and the occasional magical material. Whereas we can construct any number of materials with magical properties that are currently hidden from us by our inability to simulate the quantum mechanical processes that animate chemistry.

We are right on that threshold of unlocking all of these dimensions. And at the same time, we鈥檙e putting money into NFTs, the metaverse and other things that will come and go, without anybody ever caring.

Are you talking about the mix of quantum with biology and model-focused companies?

Barrett: Quantum allows us to directly design materials, directly explore the method of action of drugs, and directly design drugs.

AI has a role to play in biology and understanding structures we can measure. We think there are quantum wet labs where we can measure the performance of small-molecule drugs against models of nature and then verify in nature.

We don鈥檛 know how many things that animate our industry actually work. We don鈥檛 know how Tylenol works. We don鈥檛 know how the Type II superconductors we鈥檙e building fusion reactors out of work. We know that if you take iron and nitrogen and arrange them in a certain way, they produce magnets stronger than rare earth magnets, but we don鈥檛 know why.

There are mysterious things we鈥檝e stumbled across that hint at an Aladdin鈥檚 cave locked behind a wall of computation. That wall is coming down.

Which sectors do you think are going to take a lot longer to come to fruition?

Barrett: Civilization will operate on fusion eventually, but right now the only reactor that works using gravimetric confinement is the sun. I think that鈥檚 a long way off.

Data centers in space are stupid. You can鈥檛 operate a gigawatt data center in a thermos. We have terrestrial answers to those questions that we should pursue.

I鈥檝e always been a detractor of self-driving cars, which are starting to work. Now we need an economic model that makes them sensible and doesn鈥檛 drown our cities. The problem with transportation in cities is not the degree of autonomy. If we cared about traffic deaths, we鈥檇 worry about roundabouts.

There鈥檚 also nonsense with NFTs and the metaverse which have sopped up enormous amounts of capital. Small amounts of capital using these tools against our most difficult diseases would yield results. Small modular reactors are an unwarranted innovation.

There are lots of things that, at first blush, seem good and valuable, but there are far better solutions that are simpler and more imminent. We need to be practical about where the money goes.

There was a company that just joined the Unicorn Board, valued over $1 billion this past month, doing orbital data centers. Are you saying this whole category doesn鈥檛 make sense?

Barrett: To his credit, will show you a picture of what a 100-kilowatt data center looks like, and it鈥檚 bigger than Starship. A 100-kilowatt is a small rack from that is human-sized.

The arguments are that there are a lot of renewables in space. But there are a lot of renewables on the ground too. North Western Australia has solar and wind that are 70% naturally firm, and on the ground, so you can build things on it.

Put a data center in North Western Australia, which we are doing. We have a renewable site 35x the size of Manhattan.

Energy generation and compute in space is a nonstarter because space is not cold. You鈥檙e building things in a thermos and need to get rid of heat. A single human-sized rack is 100 kilowatts, which is about the size of the International Space Station鈥檚 radiators and solar panels.

Starship has yet to actually put anything in orbit. It鈥檚 made some fireworks, which are pretty, and it鈥檚 a beautiful thing. is an amazing company because of Falcon 9 and Starlink. But data centers and power generation in space makes no sense.

We know how to build arbitrary amounts of energy generation on the ground with very safe, very large nuclear reactors. We鈥檝e been doing it for decades.

For all the talent and genius rattling around the Valley, we do spend money on silly things.

Do you think now is the most exciting time to be investing, or have some of those investments already been made and are going to come to fruition?

Barrett: We鈥檝e already made investments in things on a really steep trajectory.

Snowcap will take a decade before we鈥檙e building GPUs with that technology, but we鈥檒l have commercial product from them next year. We鈥檙e getting better at early, undeniable signals.

PsiQuantum is a long journey, but some things just take that amount of time.

X-Lite seems like a ridiculously long journey, although we鈥檙e building the prototype facility now, and it received the first money from the new CHIPS Act.

Some hardware companies making silicon or systems are getting significant revenue in a handful of years.

There鈥檚 a sleeper in Fund I. Its first trick was to make MRI machines 100,000x more sensitive, and they鈥檙e shipping those. In the background they鈥檝e also been developing that core physics to build a new quantum computing modality. So we actually have two quantum computing companies in Fund I.

Even though that鈥檚 a 10-year-old company, there are about to be two companies, one of which will be a unicorn virtually overnight.

There are wild things bubbling under the surface that people are going to wonder where they came from.

Companies like 鈥� the only co-packaged optics on TSMC 鈥� we鈥檝e been working on that for a long time. Now people are waking up to silicon photonics and co-packaged optics.

There are also stealth companies that are indistinguishable from magic. Some of those will come out of stealth this summer.

Is there anything we haven鈥檛 chatted about that you think is worth noting?

Barrett: It鈥檚 a sobering note, but globally there is a need and desire for sovereign capability in tech 鈥� in Western Europe, Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

There are extraordinary pools of capital, pension funds and Australia鈥檚 superannuation fund. Given the things we can invest in, globally the West needs to do a better job translating that capital into societal and economic value.

The safety and durability of liberal democracies depends on creating wealth and staying ahead.

We see a resurgent desire to do that in Europe and Australia. Around those pools of capital, there鈥檚 ambition. We need to drive that ecosystem globally, not just in the U.S.

The pace of innovation in Ukraine, driven by need, is indicative of changes that can be made in parts of the world less friendly to the tenets we hold dear in liberal democracies.

We can鈥檛 operate under the assumption that everybody clever lives in Palo Alto or that we can only invest in things we can drive to. We need to deploy capital globally, and we do. We鈥檙e going to do more of that.

Do you feel encouraged by the amount of infrastructure build-out that鈥檚 going to happen over the next few years? It feels like it will create a boom in all sorts of technologies because the drive for efficiency will become much stronger.

Barrett: LLMs are not the end. We鈥檒l run LLMs on these data centers initially, but we鈥檒l run their descendants and other more useful things on these machines and on quantum machines.

It鈥檚 going to be hard to overbuild because computation is incredibly useful. There鈥檚 no upper bound. We鈥檙e not in a Malthusian zero-sum game for resources.

We know how to make everything more productive. We know how to grow GDP arbitrarily large. But we need food, energy and medicine there, and we need to normalize the distribution of wealth.

There is unbounded abundance we can unlock if we spend capital on the right things. We know how to do much more of that than people suspect.

The fact that sensible people are considering data centers in space indicates they鈥檙e not paying attention to the things we already have in hand that can move the needle.

We do need compute in space. We need AIs in space, sensing in space, and Starlink is great. But we need to use technologies that make sense, not try to make skyscrapers out of toothpicks.

小蓝视频色情网页版 queries:

Related reading:

• Sector Snapshot: Quantum Computing Startup Investment Slows In 2026 While Public Markets Hold Strong
• Sector Snapshot: Semiconductor Startup Funding Still Running Hot

Illustration:

For decades, the SaaS playbook was clear: predictable revenue streams, very high gross margins, efficient customer acquisition and strong net revenue retention made a startup very attractive to investors. These metrics built unicorns and defined how investors valued SaaS investments.

But today, with the launch of LLMs, and in the shadow of the 鈥淪aaSpocalypse,鈥� 30 years of relative SaaS stability has been shattered and the playbook is being rewritten with disappearing ink.

If you鈥檙e a SaaS founder 鈥� especially one raising capital 鈥斅爐his may lead to uncertainty and confusion. You may lose sleep because the whole market trajectory is uncertain. Investors themselves are trying to anticipate how the SaaS business model will change and, ultimately, what your company should be. To add further confusion, the model many VCs are championing (SaaS and services, anyone?) doesn鈥檛 look anything like traditional SaaS. So, what should a founder do?

Ignore the SaaS du jour

In a recent , partner argued that the next trillion-dollar company will be a software business disguised as a services firm, one that sells both tools and outcomes.

His logic is straightforward: For every dollar spent on software, six are spent on services. Meanwhile, LLMs are commoditizing many AI-native SaaS products before they even have a chance to scale. In this world, Bek argues, judgment 鈥� not software 鈥� is the scarce asset and customers will eventually pay for outcomes, not seats.

For founders, advice like this can be seductive to take. If software margins are compressing and AI is eroding moats, why not follow the trend, add services and open new revenue streams?

Founders need to be careful about taking this fashionable advice because it is greatly driven by investor anxiety and not as much by market reality. What VCs are really responding to are two separate concerns: how to reduce the risk that a portfolio company is disrupted by foundation models, and how to adapt to a new SaaS economy where software alone may no longer command the margins, defensibility or growth premiums it once did.

Founders should instead be prepared to answer this practical question: which parts of their business still matter, which parts have changed, and how do they need to adjust in that context. If the offering is not core to the operations of the enterprise, a pivot will likely be necessary.

The market reset is real, and yes it affects your pitch

The growth-at-all-costs mindset is gone. In its place, investors are laser-focused on capital and sales efficiency, gross and net retention, as well as Rule of 40, gross retention, CAC payback and burn multiple.

What this means for your pitch: A strong SaaS founder today must be able to demonstrate a sharp wedge, a clear buyer, strong usage, measurable ROI and a product roadmap that expands from point solution into platform.

The bar has moved from 鈥淐an this company grow?鈥� to 鈥淐an this company grow efficiently and organically, retain customers through budget scrutiny, and compound value as it scales?鈥�

AI startups can grow at unprecedented rates, but early hypergrowth can be misleading when switching costs are low and retention is unproven. Investors are excited by AI growth, but increasingly skeptical of AI novelty.

A demo is not enough. You need to prove AI creates durable workflow ownership, not temporary experimentation. Remember, if it takes less than a year to create a company using the current tools, without a sufficient moat, it will take even less time to create an even better company to compete with this one in 12 months.

Focus must be on creating a system of intelligence or a vertical operating system for an enterprise. Understanding workflows is critical. Features and functionalities are no longer sufficient.

Your pricing model is going to change

Seat-based pricing is no longer always the right answer. If your AI performs work independently, customers don’t need more seats to get more value. This is pushing the market toward usage-, consumption- and outcome-based models. notes that long-term pricing is shifting toward value-based and outcome pricing, and that continued cost-of-intelligence improvements could eventually help margins expand.

In the old SaaS model, value was tied to access: seats, users, departments. In the AI era, value is tied to outcomes. Software isn’t just helping employees do tasks anymore. It’s beginning to execute them directly: writing code, reviewing contracts, resolving support tickets, analyzing financial data, automating back-office workflows.

Have a big moat

Promising AI categories are attracting 2x to 3x more competitors than in prior years, while large SaaS incumbents are aggressively launching AI products, acquiring startups and hiring AI talent. Investors will ask you directly: what’s your moat? Is this a real defensible position, or a feature that 1, or can ship in a quarter?

AI expands the addressable market for software significantly. Traditional SaaS captured software budgets. AI-enabled SaaS can capture services spend, labor spend and outsourced process spend. Battery frames this as a major expansion from cloud software into services automation and human labor displacement 鈥� a much larger opportunity than prior SaaS waves.

Rules for the road

The market is open for exceptional SaaS companies. But the bar is higher, and investors have seen enough AI pitches to be skeptical of the theme. What they want to hear from you: A specific customer pain point with evidence of urgent demand; proof of retention, not just initial adoption; efficiency metrics that hold up under scrutiny; and a clear, concrete explanation of how AI improves your product, your business model and your customer’s ROI.

The founders who get funded in this environment will be domain experts who understand their customer’s workflow deeply, where AI can safely replace, augment or accelerate human work, and disciplined operators who understand the economic tradeoffs: when to use frontier models, when to use smaller specialized models, when to fine-tune, and when to preserve human review.

is managing partner at . He has more than 41 years of C-level global experience in the tech sector as a seasoned investor, entrepreneur, board member and educator focused on helping teams prepare for rapid growth, scaling and liquidation events.

Related reading:

• Why The Future Of SaaS Is Eat Or Be Eaten
• 3 Ways AI Is Transforming Venture Capital Investment

Illustration: