Daniel Eyman

Layer is tackling one of the most overlooked pain points for SMBs: accounting. They’re gaining real traction doing so. Emergence is leading their seed round to bring embedded, AI-powered accounting to the SMB software stack. Kevin Spain highlights what makes this team and product so compelling. 

18

2 Comments

Great HLTH 2025. Some big trends I saw: - Drug distribution is going direct - Payers want vendors to take risk - Everyone has a chatbot - Behavioral health is maturing - FDA clearance is the new Series B - Post-discharge is a big opportunity - Diagnostics are becoming portable and ROI-oriented - Provider workflows are becoming consumer-grade

51

4 Comments

Thrilled to see Prosoma join the CRB Health Tech SGEIC portfolio alongside Verge HealthTech Fund and IMPACT Partners. Tackling the critical mental health needs of oncology patients with an evidence-based, reimbursed digital therapeutic already making strides in Europe—and now expanding to the U.S. market. Looking forward to supporting their journey in value-based care and global growth. #DigitalHealth #Oncology #MentalHealth #VentureCapital #CRBInvests #HealthInnovation

25

💡Emerging GP Fundraising Insight #8: Rolling Closes Keep You Moving Small funds can't always afford to sit still until the target is hit. Rolling closes let you start deploying earlier, build a track record, and show momentum to prospective LPs. One GP told me that for Fund I ($5M target), he took capital as it came, signed, wired, and got to work. It wasn't perfect, but it kept the lights on and the deals moving. Sometimes the "sign and wire as it comes" approach is the only way to get moving. Takeaway: Momentum is a fundraising asset and rolling closes can help you keep it. Has anyone here used rolling closes as a strategic advantage?

29

13 Comments

It's time for GAAP to catch up to reality on valuation. To date, GAAP says that a SAFE has no valuation signal. None. Nada. A Seed round SAFE done with a $10M cap a year ago cannot be changed in value when that same company raises another SAFE at a $100M cap. Nope - no change in value to that $10M cap safe, even though you could sell it to the new investors at a premium. The goal, accountants say, of all of the 409A nonsense we endure and the quarterly mark-to-market valuation with OPM (absurdly inaccurate) is to do better than the finger in the wind valuation we used to do. And with secondary transactions relying on these valuations, it is worth trying to be more accurate. So we do it, all the while knowing it is all a guess based on a guess based on a hope. So, why leave out SAFEs? Putting a higher cap on a SAFE is a much stronger market signal than an option pricing model. 409As use Black Scholes? Using what implied volatility as input? Puhlease. These are exercised in using precise equations with finger-in-the-wind inputs. A cap is a number, we can measure. And when they SAFE converts, a VERY high percentage of the time it converts at the cap. It is a proxy for valuation. So, all you GAAP colored pencil geeks, please update your thinking to incorporate SAFE caps which, in the early going, are the market substitute for current valuation.

3

Innovation at its finest! SurgiBox Inc. created an inexpensive portable operating room. This could be the future of surgery. Ambit Health Ventures Sam Goldberger, MD, MBA Naomi Fried, Ph.D. Mason Reiner Kelly Laurel Mike Teodorescu Sashidhar J. Atif Rakin Karen Bernstein

17

1 Comment

Why Silicon Valley is really talking about fleeing California (it's not the 5%) The recent trend of billionaires leaving California raises critical questions about the underlying factors influencing their decisions. It’s more than just the 5% tax rate; it's about the evolving landscape of opportunity and regulatory challenges impacting innovation. At ElevenX Capital, we see this as a pivotal moment for venture capital to adapt and explore new markets that promote entrepreneurship and growth. How can we better support startups in regions outside traditional tech hubs? #investing #innovation #venturecapital #entrepreneurship

2

Every hire, product feature, and GTM experiment is a capital allocation decision, most teams just don’t call it that. I’m kicking off a 3-part series on capital allocation for founders, operators, and finance leaders with a simple question: ➡️ Will the next $1 you deploy become worth more than $1? Series overview Part 1: defines the core concept + the math Part 2: where capital goes + how to measure whether it’s working Part 3: AIMS framework for communicating allocation decisions to management teams and your board Part 1 (attached here) lays the practical foundation: 🔹 The $1 invested test and ROIIC vs. hurdle rates (scoreboard vs. decision lens) 🔹 A lightweight “investment brief” to evaluate bets (GROW / BUILD / BUY) 🔹 The small metric toolkit that translates finance into operating decisions (NPV / payback / ROIIC / incremental margin) 🔹 Early-stage proxies when DCF inputs are unknowable (burn multiple + revenue quality) 🔹 Operator “vital signs” to spot drift early (profit engine, leverage, cash conversion, optics) Series Roadmap ✔️ This series (Parts 1–3): breadth-first. shared, lightweight framework to define value creation, choose decision-grade metrics, and communicate tradeoffs clearly ✔️ Next series: depth-first. momentum drivers + operational decisions that need near real-time measurement to spot drift early and course-correct fast Read Part 1 here and Part 2 and 3 on substack. Next Series will be out next week. 💰 What’s one bet you’re funding right now, and how will you prove it’s working?

6

The number one reason life sciences ventures fall apart is: 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. Last week I posted a framework to assess business viability (the 'LIFE' framework) - today we're deep diving on the first letter, "L" = 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽. We've all heard it 759644858 times, "the team is everything" (said so often, we're desensitised). Setting aside obvious dealbreakers (toxic leadership, misaligned incentives, etc.) there are dynamics that subtly 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹: one founder owns the science, one owns the business. However, specialisation without 𝗺𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 is where 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝘀. When each founder doesn't appreciate/ understand the 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, the leadership dynamic becomes adversarial and combative, meaning decisions take forever and often end in deadlock. And let me tell you - 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀. The best founding teams: → The scientist trusts that taking (measured) risks, will serve the business → The business lead understands the science so keeps the strategy progressive, yet protective → Both founders have co-created a shared vision that anchors every downstream decision, respect exists even when disagreements arise The science-business relationship is a leading indicator of what follows: culture, capital efficiency, and ultimately, whether a promising molecule ever becomes a medicine. Did I miss anything? What would you add to the red/green flag lists? #BiotechVC #LifeScienceVC #lifescienceinvesting #ScienceLeadership #HealthcareInvesting

28

1 Comment

I’ve spoken to over 2 dozen MDs at PE firms I can confidently say that the arb of figuring out how to implement Vertical AI at portfolio companies is very real right now It will fundamentally change underwriting for those who can do it predictably and unlock generational returns. Most are aware they need to act. Very few have.

454

64 Comments