Last Money in is Powered by Sydecar

Sydecar empowers syndicate leads to manage their investments more effectively. Organize, manage, and engage your investor network effortlessly with Sydecar’s management and communication tools. Their platform also automates banking, compliance, contracts, tax, and reporting, freeing up syndicate leads to focus on securing deals and strengthening investor relations. Elevate your syndicate operations with Sydecar.

Higher Deal Volume = Smaller GP Commit

As a syndicate lead, I get questions about my GP commit size. The short answer? It's small, because I’m doing ~75 deals a year. This week I am sharing more on my GP commit and also how to think about different GP commit sizes from different syndicates.

75 SPVs per year: The Math Behind GP Commits

I run approximately 75 SPVs per year and we invest personal capital (as our GP commit) into every deal. When you're deploying across that many deals, the math is straightforward: my GP commit per deal will be smaller than someone running 5-10-15 deals annually.

This isn't a bug—it's a feature of my investment strategy. Additionally, I write select, larger GP checks each year, typically focusing on pre-seed and seed stage SPVs (typically sub $20m to $30m valuation) where I have a combination of high conviction and also a 100x+ return opportunity, and again, at seed or earlier. But across 75 deals, there's simply limited personal capital I can deploy at this stage of my VC career without being financially irresponsible. Perhaps, I’m not crazy enough and I will not do as well in VC because of it 🤔

Understanding Different Syndicate Models

Syndicate leads operate with vastly different strategies, and GP commit structures should reflect these differences:

High-Volume Access Model (My Approach): Running 75+ deals per year, providing LPs access to a broad portfolio of opportunities, typically alongside well-known VCs/investors, with selective larger personal investments in higher upside (and riskier), high-conviction deals.

Concentrated Bet Model: Syndicate leads running 2-10 deals annually, often leading rounds or taking larger positions and less focused on the co-invest model. These leads naturally have higher GP commits per deal given their concentrated approach. GP size here can still vary quite a bit depending on the wealth of the syndicate lead. You have younger, hungry folks doing smaller amounts whereas post-exit founders or folks who have been in the industry for multiple decades typically have more personal capital to deploy into these deals. 

Rolling Fund/VC Fund Model: Many syndicate leads deploy capital from rolling funds or traditional funds as their GP commits. This is fund capital, not personal capital—nothing wrong with this approach, and can signal higher conviction when deploying fund capital. Regardless, it's important for LPs to understand the distinction. If the syndicate is doing 50+ SPV’s per year, it likely has similar strategy/thinking to the High-Volume Access Model above, just with fund capital here instead of personal capital.

The Personal Capital Reality

After six years in venture with limited exits, my best performing companies show large markups but aren't liquid yet. I’ve sold some secondary but nothing meaningful either here. This is the reality for most early-stage investors—paper gains don't translate to deployable cash. When you're investing personal capital rather than fund capital, liquidity constraints are real.

If an LP is turned off by my small GP commit, I completely understand that perspective. I might want to provide more on the volume I do, but at the same time, I would not argue with it. Wanting to see skin in the game from your GP is very reasonable as an LP. But context matters: small GP commits across 75 deals still represent significant aggregate personal investment and alignment to my portfolio and the venture asset class.

Strategy Provides Context 

If you are an LP in a syndicate, obviously the deal evaluation is likely the most important thing to evaluate. That said, as it relates to the GP commit specifically, the key question LPs should ask is "What's the syndicate lead's strategy?"

• Are these concentrated bets where the syndicate is leading rounds and the GP commit represents deep conviction in a smaller number of companies?

• Or is this an access play where the syndicate is primarily providing LPs access to rounds with strong external signals from other investors?

Both strategies can be valuable, but the GP commit should be evaluated within the context of the specific approach.

Summary

My GP commit is smaller as the deal volume is higher. This aligns with my strategy of providing higher volume VC exposure while making selective, larger personal bets where I have the conviction and see an 100x+ opportunity i.e. pre-seed or seed.

Every syndicate lead's GP commit should be evaluated within the context of their specific strategy and value proposition. 

For LPs who prefer higher GP commits, there are plenty of syndicate leads running concentrated strategies with larger personal investments per deal and I would recommend searching for those folks.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to view our prior posts on adjacent topics 

• Why Syndicate Leads Don’t Survive 

• The Syndicate LP Churn Problem 

• What Really Drives Investment Interest in SPVs

Last Money in is Powered by Sydecar

Sydecar empowers syndicate leads to manage their investments more effectively. Organize, manage, and engage your investor network effortlessly with Sydecar’s management and communication tools. Their platform also automates banking, compliance, contracts, tax, and reporting, freeing up syndicate leads to focus on securing deals and strengthening investor relations. Elevate your syndicate operations with Sydecar.

If you enjoyed this post, please share on LinkedIn, X (fka Twitter), Meta and elsewhere. It goes a long way to support us!

Follow the Last Money In authors on LinkedIn

✍️ Written by Zachary and Alex