James Ruben

Your pre-seed deck does not need an exit slide. It needs a clear path to product-market fit. 🚪 I see founders get caught up in the “exit” hype way too early. Someone tells them they need an exit strategy, and suddenly they are asking themselves, “Okay… who could I sell this company to in 10 years?” When you are raising pre-seed, your real job is to build a product people want. Not to map out a billion-dollar sale before you even have users. Investors notice when you focus on exits. To them, it can look like you are skipping the hard work. It’s a red flag if you talk more about selling than about solving real problems. There are only two cases where an “exit” slide makes sense: → You are building with the clear goal of a strategic acquisition. You already know the buyer, have connections, and it’s almost an insider deal. → Your founding team has proven exits. You know the process, you. have done it before, and you can speak from experience. For everyone else, leave the exit slide out. Show your path to product-market fit instead. What matters most at pre-seed: ▪️ How you will reach PMF ▪️ What problem you solve ▪️ Who your first customers are ▪️ Why your team can build it Focus on building something people love. Exits come later, after you prove value. Have you ever felt pressure to include an “exit” slide?

25

2 Comments

Second-Time Founders Don’t Fundraise Like You - Here’s Why They do not send decks. They do not ask for intros. They raise in half the time and walk into the room with leverage you never see coming. In this new issue of HealthVC, we break down how experienced founders: Pre-bake the round long before the launch Sequence LPs to build layered momentum Use co-invest dynamics to reduce friction Manufacture FOMO before the first call is made If you’ve ever felt like your fundraising process is slower, harder, or more uncertain than others, this explains why. 📬 Read it now on Substack 

5

Seed fundraising hasn’t gotten easier. After reviewing thousands of early-stage companies, one pattern is obvious: most founders don’t fail at seed fundraising because their idea is weak — they fail because they misunderstand how seed rounds actually get done. 👉 That’s why we put together the LvlUp Ventures Guide to Seed Fundraising. It’s not a hype piece. It’s the exact mental model we see strong founders use when they raise efficiently and get back to building. Some of the core takeaways: 🔹 Raise when you have momentum you can explain, not just a polished deck 🔹 Size your round to buy 12–18 months of real progress — not optionality theater 🔹 SAFEs and notes are tools, not shortcuts; understand how they compound dilution 🔹 One committed investor changes everything — momentum beats perfection 🔹 Speed and clarity matter more than squeezing every last point of valuation 🔹 The goal isn’t “winning the round” — it’s setting up the next phase of the company This is the guide we wish more founders read before starting outreach — not halfway through a messy raise. 👇 Question for founders raising right now: What’s been hardest for you — getting in touch with investors, structuring the round, or keeping momentum once conversations start? 👇Want the Full LvlUp Ventures Guide to Seed Fundraising? 👍 Like this Post 💬 Comment “Fundraising” ✅ I’ll DM you the guide and share next steps to get reviewed by LvlUp’s Investment Committee and our 25+ VC partners. #Fundraising #VC #Startup #Seed #EarlyStage #VentureCapital #StartupFounders #Founders #RaisingCapital #Startups #SaaS #Tech #CPG #B2B #Entrepreneurship #BuildInPublic #FundraisingTips #VCInsights

208

171 Comments

Investors vs founders mentality Founders wake up thinking: “Holy sh*t, how do I keep this alive today?” Investors wake up thinking: “Hm, should I deploy $500k here or buy a bigger Tesla?” Founders see a product glitch at 2 AM and think the world is ending. Investors see a product glitch at 2 AM and think, “Why are you texting me at 2 AM?” Founders’ mentality: “I’ll sell my kidney if needed to make payroll.” Investors’ mentality: “Let’s avoid founder kidney sales; it ruins our ESG score.” Founders build fast and break things because they’re terrified someone else will build faster and break them. Investors analyse pitch decks for weeks, thinking, “If it’s a real unicorn, it will still be there when I’m done with my vacation in Mykonos.” Founders pitch with fire in their eyes: “We’re revolutionising this market!” Investors reply with spreadsheets in their eyes: “Interesting, but what’s your EBITDA margin in Year 4?” Founders: “We need to close this round to launch next month.” Investors: “We need another committee meeting to discuss whether we want to have a meeting.” The truth is: Both are needed. Founders push reality forward. Investors make sure it doesn’t fall off a cliff. But let’s be honest. Sometimes, founders think investors are slow, clueless, risk-averse suits. Sometimes investors think founders are manic, delusional caffeine addicts. And sometimes, they’re both right. Still, when these two mentalities sync, the mad urgency of founders meets the cold caution of investors, that’s when magic happens. Because startups aren’t built on just money or hustle. They’re built on the tension between “move fast or die” and “let’s not die by moving stupidly.” Which side are you on today?

74

30 Comments

The Headline family is experiencing incredible momentum, and today our portfolio company DeepIP is announcing a $25M Series B, bringing total funding to $40M.  This is the kind of company that doesn’t just add AI to a workflow, but it sets the standard for an entire category. The momentum speaks for itself: 1️⃣ 10x ARR growth in < 18 months 2️⃣ Trusted by 400+ law firms and leading corporate IP teams globally 3️⃣ 2M+ chats on the DeepIP platform We’ve had the chance to back FX (Francois-Xavier) L. and Edouard D., leading their Seed round with Headline. Watching them take on a problem as complex and high-stakes as patent work has been genuinely impressive. And working with them has been an absolute pleasure: these 2 are coupling very high ambition and humility. Tech built in Europe, but opening the US office very early and FX starting a life in NYC with his family with 0 hesitation in order to build a global category leader in the IP industry. What convinced me early is still what stands out today: patent teams don’t need another standalone AI tool. They need something that fits the way the work actually happens: documents, long-running matters, multiple stakeholders, and zero room for sloppy context handoffs. Big congrats to the whole DeepIP team + Korelya Capital, Balderton & Serena Proud that we’re doubling down at Headline and continuing the support for what’s next!

124

10 Comments

Boards are supposed to help founders. Over the past 19 years, I've watched many trap them instead. As companies scale, many boards turn from insight to oversight and stop doing what founders actually need: Help making big, hard decisions. Early boards tend to be small, the board members are close to the business and highly invested in it. They argue from first principles. They help founders think. Later-stage boards often look more impressive on paper - they have more independent directors, committees and process. Somewhere along the way, collective problem solving gets replaced with oversight. The board shifts from helping the CEO make better decisions to monitoring decisions that have already been made. Strategy discussions get safer, real debate gets rarer and meetings become more about risk management than judgment. This usually coincides with the introduction of more professional board members. For better or worse, they often optimize for governance, optics, and liability management. That’s their job. But it’s not always what the company needs in moments of real uncertainty. Then, CEOs stop using them as thought partners. That’s a problem. So what should founders do? A few principles that help: • Keep the board as small as you can for as long as you can • Add directors for new insight they bring, not what boxes they check • Treat board seats like senior hires, not trophies • Design meetings for debate rather than reporting • Be explicit about when you want input vs approval Good boards should improve decision-making. If your board isn’t making you think harder, it’s probably not doing its job.

79

12 Comments

It’s Time States Start Building and Investing in Creating Venture Portfolios (Real Ones….) This week at HLTH, there’s a lot going on. One framing thought, given all that’s going on. We should not just be talking about startups or pilots — we need to talk about reengineering systems. Everyone should know by now that fed volatility has pushed innovation risk down the cap stack. Early stage risk isn’t necessarily being covered by SBIR as a given anymore and investors can’t by and large if they hold to their investment thesis. While there are emerging models on DAF’s and with philanthropy, now there’s an opportunity for states and cities to step up. This started during SSBCI, but there’s room for more. The smart states and regions aren’t focused chasing flashy economic development headlines anymore — they’re actively building and derisking venture-grade portfolios. Think of it like this: • Each grant, site, or fund = a startup bet • Each incentive = a milestone-based round • Each region = a sector thesis (biomanufacturing, dual-use, digital health) I’m seeing the most impact where states treat capital like venture investors do — not political capital, but real capital tied to milestones, outcomes, and multiplier effects. A number of states and cities are leaning into this. At University City Science Center we are happy to be implementing a first of its kind science and tech based commercialization support program in life sciences in conjunction with the City of Philadelphia (all credit to Rebecca L Grant, DVM for pushing this). Kudos to the several states (CA, TX, MA and others) who are starting to approach investment in startups not as political wins but necessary economic development work WITH a venture lens. Related to this we’ll be unpacking this on our HLTH panel “Picking Up Uncle Sam’s Slack”, alongside leaders who are actively reshaping how public-private innovation gets funded and scaled. If you’re at HLTH — stop by the Science Center booth or drop a note. I’m particularly interested in meeting those building state or regional models around: • Dual-use commercialization pipelines • Adaptive procurement pilots • State LP and co-investment frameworks It’s time we stop measuring programs by how they start — and start measuring them by how fast they scale. #HLTH2025 #InnovationEcosystems #VenturePolicy #StateCapital #AdaptiveProcurement #PublicPrivatePartnerships

8