@jsblair Very sad to hear this!
You guys built something really good and transparent that stood you apart. The Solana ecosystem is worse off without Carrot.
I’m sure you’ll bounce back and very excited for @JettyFi
@Amonahan We used to do this at one of the HFs I worked at - but often on a market related to each of members (sum of the number of suits owned by everyone on the desk) so everyone had some inside knowlege and anchor value.
Dave is right - USVC yet another grift in the world of retail-accessible VC. I went through the 56-page prospectus and its even worse than the tweet suggests:
1. Fee stack: 3.61% gross annual expense ratio, capped net at 2.50%. Underlying SPVs/VC funds charge another 1–2.5% mgmt + 20–30% carry on top. You're paying 3+ layers of fees before any return hits your account.
2. The prospectus states twice, verbatim: "The Investment Adviser has no previous experience managing a closed-end, registered investment company." The adviser was formed Dec 2023 and rebranded from "Strawberry Tree Management" to "AngelList Asset Management" last November.
3. Portfolio manager Ankur Nagpal is compensated on AUM growth, not performance. Straight from the prospectus: his Carry acquisition earnout "includes contingent payments tied to USVC's growth in assets under management." Textbook non-traded REIT incentive structure.
4. AngelList gets paid three times on the same dollar:
• 1% advisory fee to AngelList Asset Management
• Up to 5% of profits to Platform Advisor LLC (AngelList affiliate)
• Fund admin fees to Belltower Fund Group (AngelList affiliate)
5. NAV is sponsor-marked - the adviser is its own "valuation designee." Prospectus disclaimer: "Fair value prices are necessarily subjective in nature…no assurance that such a price will be at or close to the price at which the security is next quoted or next trades."
6. "5% quarterly redemptions" is marketing. Reality: Board can cancel any offer, can offer less than 5%, can repurchase at a discount to NAV, and oversubscribed offers prorate. Straight from the doc: "Shareholders should not rely on being able to tender the full amount—or any—of their Shares."
7. Naval frames it as "VC for everyone." The prospectus describes a non-traded CEF with sponsor-marked NAV, AUM-linked manager comp, three layers of affiliate fees, and gated discretionary liquidity.
Retail doesn't need access to private markets this badly.
@zmanian Strong disagree - competent vault curation will still massively outperform agentic flow on any aggregate performance metric.
And size often carries benefits (better fee tiers, negotiated incentives etc)
Since 10/10 Ethena was poorly positioned for what has been a material regime change.
In the last few months we have been building out the infrastructure to securely access alternate sources of safe and scalable collateral to better position the business for these periods of downturn.
This is an important piece of work which should have been done a long while ago, but now positions USDe backing to experience less rate volatility during periods of suppressed crypto native interest rates.
Going forward, once approved by the independent risk committee, USDe will have access to:
-Basis on non crypto assets including commodities and equities
-Institutional triparty collateralized lending via @coinbase@krakenfx@Anchorage and others
-Prime lending across CeFi and @HyperliquidX
-Liquid high quality non-tbill RWA exposures
Each of the above represent multi-billion capacity opportunities with that will now sit alongside the existing USDe collateral base to improve the product resilience through the cycle.
I beg everyone in crypto to read this in full.
I expected this to be another case of social engineering, likely some recruiter/job offer shit.
I was very wrong.
And the depth of the operation and personas makes me think they already have multiple other teams on lock.
😳
@Melt_Dem Everyone here is giving equity/alt data examples - but in more OTC markets rates/credit/Vol lots of funds buy data from specific data vendors - Parameta, CME, Refinitiv etc
and often as additional data subscriptions through Bloomberg
@stacy_muur The products are a lot less sticky with far lower customer LTV - so makes sense why the payouts are a lot lower.
Trading $10k (which generates about $2 in fees) for a $10 rebate is broken - but not for the reason you think