附近上门 data tells us Black startup founders still receive only a tiny sliver of venture funding. What the numbers don鈥檛 tell us is why investors continue to overlook those entrepreneurs, and more importantly, how the industry can improve the odds for Black and other underrepresented business leaders.

To better understand what’s driving the persistent gap 鈥� and what it will take to close it 鈥� 附近上门 News spoke with six venture capitalists who actively back Black founders about where they believe the ecosystem continues to fall short and how it can improve outcomes.

While they offered different perspectives, several themes emerged: Venture firms need to broaden the networks they rely on to source deals, founders continue to face structural barriers long before they pitch investors, and lasting progress will require changes from both investors and entrepreneurs.

Expand beyond familiar networks

Underrepresented founders face distinct pressures as the venture industry retreats to its traditional networks, according to partner , who said the pullback in funding to Black founders overlooks where investors can discover market-outperforming businesses.

鈥淭he bar for all founders has gotten higher in recent years, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing,鈥� she said, pointing out that the surplus of capital during the previous market peak meant startups that probably should not have been funded received investment anyway.

Still, the subsequent market correction has triggered a familiar defense mechanism among institutional investors, she said. 鈥淲hen things get hard, it’s human nature to revert to what you know and what feels safe,鈥� Kidder said. 鈥淯nfortunately, that means back to the same networks, and so there’s been extra pressure on underrepresented founders.鈥�

Instead of viewing diversity through a philanthropic lens, Kidder argues that the current environment means venture investors need to look outside of their conventional circles to beat the market. 鈥淎lpha is more likely to be found outside that comfort zone in founders who bring different perspectives and solutions to the table, especially in healthcare,鈥� she said.

To date, Boston-based Seae has backed nine Black startup founders. Kidder notes that those entrepreneurs, like with the rest of the founders in the firm鈥檚 portfolio, bring 鈥渆xtraordinary grit, experience and passion to building sustainable solutions for the market.鈥�

, partner at , agrees that venture firms’ existing networks tend to limit who gets funded and he argues that expanding those networks requires deliberate action. To that end, his firm several years ago launched Lobby: Elevate, an event designed to support underrepresented startup founders.

The entrepreneurs who attended the firm鈥檚 Founders of Color Summit demonstrate that 鈥渨hat is lacking for Black founders is opportunity and investment, not talent,鈥� he said.

Hornik said more venture firms need to intentionally create opportunities to meet founders they would not otherwise encounter, whether through events or by bringing more investors into direct conversations with underrepresented entrepreneurs.

Simply agreeing that bias exists, he said, won’t change investment outcomes.

“I don’t think there is a single white VC I respect who has funded a large cohort of Black founders, myself included,” Hornik said. “I can certainly do better.”

Because venture investing is inherently subjective, Hornik argues investors must actively push back against the implicit bias that can shape sourcing and partnership discussions. The funding statistics for Black founders won鈥檛 change unless investors are 鈥渋ntentional about the problem,鈥� he said.

That view is echoed by , co-founder and general partner of , who believes that the many public commitments made by firms to back more Black founders in the summer of 2020 following George Floyd鈥檚 death were 鈥減erformative and not permanent.鈥�

The 鈥渦nironic and quick鈥� retreat in the years since has been actively harmful to Black founders, he said. Going forward, the industry needs to make truly structural changes to see long-term improvement.

鈥淭he warm intro network is the biggest filter in venture, and it鈥檚 viewed as an asset, not a structural problem,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f you’re inside, you get meetings. If you’re not, you don’t, no matter how strong the company is. Pattern matching gets the headlines, but it’s downstream of who walks through the door.鈥�

Rhodes argues that many venture capital funds treat sourcing as a “passive intake.鈥�

In contrast, funds that systematically expand their top-of-funnel reach beyond traditional networks tend to discover companies that competitors miss.

That鈥檚 not a diversity initiative, he noted, but a distinct 鈥渋nformation advantage.鈥�

Break down barriers before the pitch

For , managing partner at , a quality often overlooked by investors is resourcefulness. Having built a startup himself before becoming an investor, Johnson said many Black founders learn to build high-quality businesses with far less capital than their peers.

鈥淏lack founders innovate at the same quality and scalability as others, with a fraction of the capital,鈥� he said.

Ironically, that same scrappiness often stymies Black founders during the pitch process, according to , founder and general partner at and the author of

O鈥橠onnell argues that many of the biggest obstacles emerge well before founders ever walk into a pitch meeting, though they continue there.

Venture firms recruit heavily from elite universities where Black computer science students make up only a small share of the student body, he said, while the broader tech ecosystem in Silicon Valley can feel unwelcoming to many Black engineers.

鈥淪ilicon Valley itself is alienating,鈥� O鈥橠onnell said. 鈥淭he Bay Area has no meaningful Black community, the interview panels are all-white, the lunchroom is all-white, and the neighborhoods are all-white. Qualified Black engineers rationally choose to work somewhere they won’t be isolated.鈥�

鈥淣ot wanting to be the only Black person in the room isn’t a failure of ambition,鈥� he added. 鈥淚t’s a reasonable response to a visible signal about what the environment will be like.鈥�

That disparity continues into the fundraising process itself, according to O’Donnell, who argues that underrepresented founders often ask for less capital and make more conservative projections because they’ve spent their careers facing greater scrutiny and are often expected to justify every dollar.

Venture investors, however, are by their very nature looking for founders who pitch ambitious, risky, fund-returning visions.

As one example, O’Donnell recalled a Black urban mobility startup founder whose pitch to VCs became caught between describing the large company he hoped to build and the modest business he had already created on the path to profitability.

The founder was 鈥減itching the way someone pitches when they’ve been taught that financial responsibility matters, but he was pitching in front of people who don’t care about financial responsibility at all,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey care about whether 鈥� if the risk was ramped up high enough 鈥� this could return a fund.”

Change the funding playbook

Many investors and Black founders who spoke with 附近上门 News came to a similar conclusion: Improving venture outcomes for underrepresented founders will require changes on both sides of the table, with investors broadening who they meet and founders building businesses that make it increasingly difficult to overlook them.

For venture firms, that starts with intentionally expanding how deals are sourced, rather than relying on warm introductions and longstanding networks.

, general partner at , argues that the responsibility for changing outcomes rests primarily with the institutions that control the vast majority of venture capital.

鈥淰enture firms led by white people and ‘model minorities’ should be asked the hard questions,鈥� said Robinson, whose early-stage venture fund is designed to back Black entrepreneurs. 鈥淭heir track records should be examined. Their implicit and explicit bias should be called out and they should have to answer for it.鈥�

Robinson believes firms need to do more than wait for investment-ready companies to appear. Instead, she said, they should actively expand their sourcing pipelines and create programs that help founders reach the stage where they’re ready to raise institutional capital.

For founders, her advice is pragmatic. Entrepreneurs should spend less time chasing investors and more time building businesses customers want, she said.

“Black founders need to relentlessly pursue sales and customers as they have been indoctrinated to pursue investors,” she said, arguing that strong commercial traction gives investors “less of a choice but to invest” once the metrics become undeniable.

Rhodes, the general partner at Fictive Ventures, also offered a reminder that venture capital is only one potential financing path. Before pursuing that path to funding, startup founders should first determine whether their business actually fits the venture capital model and the growth expectations that come with it, he said.

The venture model is built around risk-taking, he noted, but there鈥檚 a double standard for white and non-white entrepreneurs: 鈥淎 Black founder’s first failure gets treated as confirmation,鈥� he said. 鈥淎 white founder’s first failure gets treated as experience.鈥�

Still, if a Black founder is determined that venture capital is the right financing source, he or she should recognize that investors are buying a stake in the future outcome of the business.

That means personal backgrounds, stories and community impacts only matter to investors in so much as they serve to predict a financial return. 鈥淣obody is investing in you just because you’re Black,鈥� Rhodes said.

In fact, he believes that investors who frame their investment decisions around founder identity are typically the first to 鈥渄isappear in a downturn.鈥�

Instead, Rhodes advises founders to focus on finding and building for the investors who 鈥渢ruly understand鈥� the business and are committed to helping build it over the long term.

That鈥檚 a view echoed by Kidder. 鈥淔ocus on the build, get creative to show early proof points 鈥� build and leverage relationships where you’ve built trust and delivered results to seek out investors who believe in you and what you’re building,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd, don’t let the stats dissuade you from the dream. Trust your gut and focus on delivering sustainable results.鈥�

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Data: Venture Dollars For Black Startup Founders Stay Scarce Despite AI Funding Boom
• 鈥楾his System Wasn鈥檛 Built For Me鈥�: Black Founders Became Investors To Change Venture Capital

Illustration:

Only around $942 million 鈥� or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding 鈥� went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by Black founders or co-founders.

The consistently low numbers have led some Black founders to turn to investing in an effort to help level the playing field. 附近上门 News talked with two such founders to hear more about their experiences in raising capital and what they鈥檝e learned from investing.

Clarence Bethea

founded , an extended warranty startup, in 2014. He went on to raise nearly $30 million in venture capital before the startup was ultimately acquired by in 2024.

The process of raising capital for a St. Paul, Minnesota-based startup as a Black founder was arduous, he recalls, describing it as being especially 鈥渧ery hard in the beginning.鈥�

鈥淚 believe that raising money for anyone is very difficult. When you add in race, gender, and proximity, it becomes even more difficult,” he told 附近上门 News in an email interview. 鈥�… I often tell founders, raising that first million will be your hardest. Do I believe that race played a factor [in making it harder to raise capital]? Yes! Because it plays a factor in every part of my life.鈥�

It didn鈥檛 take long for Bethea to come to a distinct realization: The system was never designed with everyone in mind.

鈥淭his system wasn鈥檛 built for me, and I knew that from day one,鈥� he reflects. Yet, rather than allowing that structural reality to become a barrier, he shifted his focus toward mastery.

鈥淢y focus quickly became about learning and understanding the game of venture capital,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 want the fact that it wasn鈥檛 for me to get in the way of being a part of it.”

Bethea later made the leap into venture capital itself. In 2023, he joined , one of Upsie鈥檚 backers, as an investor and entrepreneur-in-residence. The move, he said, was motivated partly 鈥渂y the people,鈥� and wanting to be in an environment where he was “encouraged to learn deeply about the industry and how to look at deals.”

But it was also driven by a deeper mission to alter the very dynamics he faced on the other side of the table.

鈥淚 wanted to be a voice for founders who either looked like me, weren鈥檛 in-network and didn鈥檛 match the normal 鈥榩edigree鈥� of a founder,鈥� he said.

Stepping into the investor’s shoes provided Bethea with a dual perspective, he said, both validating his instincts as an entrepreneur and revealing new dimensions of the fundraising puzzle.

Becoming a VC 鈥渃onfirmed some things that I knew were true as a founder, but it also opened my eyes to ways founders can improve their chances,鈥� Bethea said.

From his vantage point as an investor, he routinely witnessed what he described as the same avoidable mistakes being made by talented teams. That realization prompted him to move on from his role at True Ventures earlier this year and became the catalyst for his current venture, 鈥溾��

Bethea describes the initiative as an 鈥渁lways-on鈥� educational platform, course and live-programming series designed to give early-stage entrepreneurs clear, unfiltered insight into the real mechanics of company building and venture fundraising.

Built on 鈥渓ived experience,鈥� the platform equips founders with more than 75 high-level videos and 90 workbook pages in an effort to demystify how venture decisions are actually made, what makes a pitch fundable, and how to approach fundraising strategically. The impact is already tangible, according to Bethea, as it鈥檚 helped two founders raise millions so far using its frameworks.

Ultimately, his time in the venture capital trenches has left him looking toward the future with a striking amount of hope.

鈥淚’m more optimistic than ever before,” he said, pointing to technological shifts as a potential massive equalizer for underrepresented builders.

鈥淎I brings down the walls of building an MVP, talking to customers, and starting to gain traction,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 really exciting for founders who don’t fit the normal founder stereotype. But we have to get better at the game of venture.鈥�

Cortney Woodruff

Over the years, has founded and raised venture capital for two startups: , an online platform that provides software services to personal trainers, and , an online learning platform that provides online courses taught by notable, Black innovators that was co-founded by actor .

Those experiences led him to conclude that while building a company is universally grueling, the playing field is far from level. Reflecting on his early days as an entrepreneur, he notes that “raising venture capital is hard for almost everyone, especially first-time founders,” given that investors must make highly risky decisions with limited information. Yet, he simultaneously observed a stark disparity in how different founders are evaluated.

鈥淚 often felt young minority founders were expected to arrive as finished products,” Woodruff told 附近上门 News in an email interview. “There seemed to be less patience, less coaching, less developmental support. I watched founders receive years of benefit-of-the-doubt capital while learning on the job. Many minority founders are expected to prove everything upfront.鈥�

This friction became undeniable during pitches for his first company, Trainersvalut. Despite walking into meetings with customers and real revenue traction, Woodruff recalls that he and his team often left 鈥渇eeling like we were still being evaluated as an idea rather than a business.鈥�

He came to that determination after a number of confusing rejections. While founders would naturally assume they are competing on product, execution and traction, Woodruff eventually concluded that it鈥檚 usually more related to familiarity.

鈥淢any investors are looking for patterns they鈥檝e seen before,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f your background, network, school, or story doesn鈥檛 fit those patterns, you often have to produce significantly more evidence before receiving the same conviction.

鈥淭hat realization changed how I viewed entrepreneurship and venture capital,鈥� Woodruff added.

Driven by a desire to learn more about how decisions were made from the other side of the table, Woodruff began angel investing. The move pulled back the curtain on the industry’s inner workings, confirming just how deeply venture capital relies on pattern recognition to signal success.

鈥淲hat surprised me was how much venture capital is driven by pattern recognition,鈥� he said. 鈥淚nvestors are trying to identify signals that increase the probability of success. The challenge is that those signals are often informed by prior successes, which can unintentionally narrow the range of founders and ideas that receive attention.鈥�

Sitting in the investor’s chair also reframed his perspective on institutional bias. As a founder, it is easy to view every rejection as personal or discriminatory, but underwriting deals revealed to him just how difficult these choices are. Today, Woodruff views the industry’s shortcomings in diversity through a systemic lens rather than an individual one.

鈥淭he people who talk about bias often underestimate the role of networks, while the people who talk about networks often underestimate the role of bias,鈥� he said. “Most investors are not waking up trying to exclude people. However, they are often sourcing opportunities from familiar circles, relying on familiar signals, and backing founders who feel familiar to them. Over time, those patterns compound.鈥�

This concentration of networks helps explain why venture capital continually underinvests in Black founders. Because VC is fundamentally relationship-driven 鈥� reliant on referrals, universities and existing investor circles 鈥� homogeneous networks naturally yield homogeneous deal flow.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think the issue is simply that investors don鈥檛 want to fund Black founders,鈥� Woodruff said. 鈥淚 think many investors never encounter a sufficiently diverse set of founders in the first place.鈥�

In his view, the resulting disparity isn’t always about who eventually gets a check, but who is given the grace to stumble and iterate. Throughout his years in the ecosystem, Woodruff said he has routinely watched founders with stronger traction receive less enthusiasm than those with stronger narratives.

鈥淭he difference is often not who gets funded eventually. The difference is who receives patience, coaching, introductions, and the opportunity to grow into the founder investors believe they can become,鈥� he said.

Now, Woodruff uses his position to bridge that gap, treating mentorship and network access as critical forms of capital. He focuses on guiding founders through an unfamiliar system, helping them avoid missteps, and opening doors to rooms they otherwise wouldn’t enter.

When looking toward the industry’s future, his outlook is balanced by both optimism and pragmatism. Woodruff is heartened that conversations around representation are more visible than ever and that technology has drastically lowered the barrier to entry for small teams building meaningful businesses. Yet, he recognizes that “systems change slowly. Networks evolve slowly. Institutions evolve slowly.”

Ultimately, he rejects the premise that venture capital can be fundamentally reengineered for fairness.

“I don鈥檛 think venture capital was designed to be equitable. It was designed to generate returns,” Woodruff said. Instead, he believes the real paradigm shift will come from diversifying the perspectives of those who write the checks.

“If every investment committee has similar backgrounds, similar networks, and similar reference points, they will naturally gravitate toward similar founders and similar ideas. I don鈥檛 believe the economics of venture capital need to change as much as the pattern recognition does,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he most successful investors in the future may be the ones who can recognize extraordinary opportunities in places others have been trained to overlook.鈥�

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Data: Venture Dollars For Black Startup Founders Stay Scarce Despite AI Funding Boom
• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Illustration:

Although the number of women-owned businesses keeps growing, startups led by women continue to fall behind their male counterparts when it comes to raising venture funding.

That’s why former executive teamed up with , a veteran and marketing executive, to found , an -registered, funding portal.

The platform, also called AQi, gives women-led businesses 鈥� those that are at least 50% women-owned 鈥� a way to raise capital through , a securities framework aimed at opening up startup investing.

Launched in 2024, AQi seeks to help female entrepreneurs reach everyday investors by simplifying regulatory disclosures and business documentation. As a member of the , the platform has passed a rigorous federal vetting process and agrees to operate under strict oversight to protect investors and ensure transparency.

附近上门 News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don鈥檛 need to give up board seats early on, and how they want to help female entrepreneurs raise and hold on to more equity.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

附近上门 News: What is your platform鈥檚 mission and what led you to launch this company?

Huyck: I spent 21 years at PayPal, where I mentored women through a partnership with the . It was there I learned about the $5 trillion gap in global GDP resulting from women entrepreneurs lacking access to capital.

In the U.S., while women start nearly half of all businesses, they receive only 2% of venture capital and less than 20% of small business loans. I wanted to build an innovative system to solve this. I considered starting a fund, but many already exist. Instead, I wanted to create a crowdfunding platform exclusively for women, providing an additional avenue to raise money. The economic irony is that women entrepreneurs earn 78 cents for every dollar invested, compared to 31 cents for men. It simply didn鈥檛 make sense, and I wanted to build a system that truly enables women.

Konwinski: To add to that, we are a very distinct entity. We are not a broker-dealer; we are an SEC-registered and FINRA-member crowdfunding platform. Following the 2012 JOBS Act, Reg CF (Regulation Crowdfunding) was created to allow nonaccredited investors to invest in private, early-stage companies. There are about 50 active platforms in the U.S., but we are the only one founded by women, owned by women, and exclusively serving women-owned businesses.

Beyond just providing a neutral platform, we act as a “quarterback.” We help entrepreneurs navigate the process 鈥� whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” 鈥� by providing access to accountants, lawyers and marketing firms. We are creating a community where women can get the resources they need to build their businesses without competing for attention in male-dominated tech circles.

How does your platform differ from sites like ?

Konwinski: Kickstarter and are for charitable gifting. We are not asking for charity; we are facilitating investments. We are on par with platforms like or , but our fee structure is more founder-friendly. On platforms like Kickstarter, you might only keep about 60% of the funds raised. Our success fee is only 6.5%. When investors invest in these businesses, they receive equity in return. Furthermore, there is a clear social return: Studies show that for every dollar a woman earns in her business, she creates significant economic benefit for her community and family.

How many businesses have you helped raise capital for thus far?

Huyck: We spent our first year building the technology and another six months on the rigorous SEC and FINRA registration process. We believe this high level of regulation is critical to ensuring investor trust. We currently have a pipeline of 20 businesses. We closed our first campaign earlier this month and have two more launching in the coming weeks.

Since Reg CF has a $5 million cap per 12-month period, how do you position yourselves for high-growth startups? And do you view this as a permanent alternative to traditional venture capital, or a bridge?

Huyck: I don鈥檛 see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on 鈥減attern matching,鈥� where investors look for people and paths that resemble previous successes. Until that breaks, women founders face significant barriers. Crowdfunding is a vital, viable alternative.

Konwinski: I would challenge the notion that $5 million isn’t enough. For many of the companies we work with, that is a strong runway for 18 to 24 months. Because Reg CF allows for rolling raises, a company can raise up to $5 million every 12 months. We see companies use this to reach a significant milestone and then potentially pursue a Series A later. We aren’t trying to be a broker-dealer for Series A deals. We are here for those who get “ghosted” by VCs or don’t want to leverage their homes to secure an SBA loan.

Does a distributed ownership structure with many unaccredited investors create a “messy” cap table that scares off traditional VCs?

Huyck: We utilize special-purpose vehicles. This consolidates all Reg CF investors into a single line item on the company鈥檚 cap table, often with a lead investor managing voting rights. This keeps the cap table clean.

Konwinski: Additionally, one of the greatest benefits of our model is that founders retain autonomy. VCs often demand board seats, veto rights and up to 20% equity. With us, founders usually give up only 5%-10% equity, allowing them to maintain control of the company they built from the ground up.

Without the pressure of a VC board, how do you help founders maintain operational discipline? And what do exit horizons look like?

Konwinski: Women entrepreneurs are natural 鈥渉ustlers鈥� who are inherently self-motivated. They are also excellent at collaborating and leveraging their community rather than operating with ego. Many of the founders we work with are Gen X, balancing business with family, and they have developed an incredible ability to multitask and execute.

Huyck: We also encourage founders to bring on advisers rather than giving up board seats too early. As for exit strategies, many women founders are mission-driven and haven’t historically been forced to consider an exit. We provide the guidance to help them think through those horizons 鈥� whether that鈥檚 acquisition or long-term growth 鈥� so they can make informed decisions rather than being forced into a timeline by traditional VC pressure.

Finally, how does your platform compare to other equity crowdfunding sites like Wefunder?

Konwinski: It is apples-to-apples in terms of our SEC/FINRA licensing. Where we differ is our value proposition: we provide a “concierge” service. On many larger platforms, you are processed through an AI-driven, automated checklist. We are building relationships, talking to our founders, and acting as their partner throughout the process.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• How Female Founders Can Access Capital In A Tight VC Funding Market
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here鈥檚 How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

The share of U.S. venture funding going to companies with Black founders in 2025 remained low, even as overall startup investment ticked slightly higher, 附近上门 data shows.

Only around $942 million 鈥� or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding 鈥� went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per 附近上门 data. That鈥檚 one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by a Black founder or co-founder.

It鈥檚 important to note that the relatively robust quarter was in large part due to an outsized round 鈥� a February $350 million Series E raise by Palo Alto, California-based . Co-founded in 2017 by chief technologist , the AI chip startup has raised a total of $1.5 billion in known funding. and co-led its latest raise.

As such, it鈥檚 not surprising that the $643 million raised so far this year was secured across just 34 deals, signaling larger deal sizes overall.

It鈥檚 important to note that the total funding raised by startups with a Black founder or co-founder so far this year is still a small percentage of the $252 billion raised by U.S.-based startups in 2026.

Last year鈥檚 total also represents a sharp decline from the record venture funding year of 2021, when investment in Black startup founders hit a high of $5.2 billion in the wake of the 2020 racial justice movement. Still, even during the peak year, investment in Black founders represented just 1.5% of U.S. venture funding, per 附近上门 data.

, managing partner at said the decline in venture funding to Black entrepreneurs coincides with a marked shift in the political environment. 鈥淭here are fewer conversations on the topic as many are afraid to speak on it directly, which is concerning,鈥� he told 附近上门 News via email.

Overall, Pierre-Jacques believes venture capital is about finding outliers. 鈥淭hat isn’t going to change for any group,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 focus on what we can do as a firm and then advocate for underserved founders.鈥�

Notable rounds

Similar to 2025, much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2026 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• SambaNova, the AI hardware and software company mentioned above. It specializes in providing infrastructure for AI and machine learning applications. Notably, tech giant reportedly in SambaNova to 8.2% following its investment in the Series E round.
• , a New York sweepstakes-based sports prediction market, picked up $75 million in a February Series B round led by at a $500 million post-money valuation. The platform has users participate in peer-to-peer wagering on sporting events.
• San Francisco-based , which is building an AI-native insurance brokerage for SMBs, also raised in February, a $47 million Series A led by . It is an alumnus of the prestigious startup accelerator .
• Live events platform in March raised a $37 million Series B led by .
• , which sells AI-driven government contracting software, raised $30 million in a January Series B round co-led by and.

Relationships and networking

Investors and founders who spoke with 附近上门 News on the topic said that in the current AI-centric funding environment, relationships and networking have only become more important for startup founders, particularly Black and other historically overlooked entrepreneurs.

鈥淚n an age of AI, who you know matters more than ever,鈥� Pierre-Jacques said. 鈥淭here are fewer deals getting done by firms and partners. You have to build personal relationships in order to make it to the top of the stack. It isn’t just about KPI comparisons.鈥�

is a two-time startup founder currently raising capital for his fintech startup, . He agrees with Pierre-Jacques on the importance of Black founders widening their networks as much as possible.

Spearman urged younger or Black founders who are building and raising for the first time to gain as much insight and inside knowledge as possible from other founders.

鈥淭his can save significant headaches, time and limited resources, especially during the early stages,鈥� he said. 鈥淏lack people in America have defined, and continue to shape, what it means to be in community, and I’m thankful to play a small role in that ecosystem.鈥�

Having worked at , an Austin analytics software company, Spearman said that he built a network over time that included exited founders whom he was able to turn to as 鈥渁dviser-investors.鈥�

鈥淭hese advisers can write checks, make intros and think like operators, which is sometimes better than seeking advice from VCs who haven’t been operators during the zero-to-one stages,鈥� he said. He also recommends that new founders, particularly those in focused sectors such as fintech or insurance tech, consider attending industry-specific conferences like Money 20/20 or ITC to make connections with VCs 鈥渕onths and sometimes years before you’re ready to raise.鈥�

Spearman also said Black founders should be open to sources of funding other than traditional venture capital, particularly when first starting out. Many are steered toward accelerators at the early stages, he noted.

鈥淚 don’t think this is bad counsel,鈥� he told 附近上门 News via email, 鈥渆specially if it involves an accelerator like the one offers annually.鈥� TenYour participated in that accelerator in 2025, which resulted in both an investment and industry connections, he said.

Looking forward, not back

The startup funding landscape has drastically changed in the span of just five years. In 2021, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, a heated 2020 presidential election, and the high-profile killings of Black Americans including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery spurred many of the largest startup investors to make high-profile pledges to back more Black and other underrepresented founders.

Now, 鈥渨e are so far from 2020, not only in the pledges made but also in the social and venture landscape,鈥� Spearman said.

Still, 鈥渞ather than looking back,鈥� he said, 鈥淚’d recommend we collectively continue to push forward to envision and co-create the world we want. For founders, that often starts with their ventures and the choice to solve a meaningful problem that other founders (and investors) may overlook.鈥�

, co-founder of and an investor with , is frustrated that funding to Black-founded startups relative to overall venture investment funding has fallen in the past few years. That鈥檚 especially disheartening, she said, given research indicating that Black Americans are more active consumers of AI tools than the general population, with a reported 53% using such tools daily or weekly, versus 39% of people overall.

鈥淭o me, this shows early signals that the investment cycle creating wealth from AI is not flowing back to the communities using AI the most,鈥� she said.

In 2021, Lal and started VC Unleashed, a nonprofit, to increase access to the venture capital world for both founders and aspiring investors. While the organization is open to all, Lal said, Unleashed uses its platform 鈥渢o uplift underrepresented founders as much as we can to help them access capital and build their network,鈥� including through its upcoming conference.

When asked if she could change one structural aspect about how venture capital operates to improve outcomes for Black founders, Lal said it would be moving the conversation upstream from general partners at VC firms to those firms鈥� limited partners.

鈥淕Ps deploy capital that LPs give them, and if a pension fund or endowment isn’t asking its VC managers about founder portfolio composition with the same rigor it applies to sector concentration or stage exposure, that absence gets transmitted all the way down to the founder level,鈥� she wrote via email. 鈥淨uestions on founder demographics, asked consistently and at scale, would do more to shift behavior than anything else.鈥�

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from 附近上门, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

附近上门鈥檚 dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its 附近上门 profile.

We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company鈥檚 Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

附近上门, like all databases of private-market transactions, experiences some reporting delays. The data for 2025 and 2026 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to 附近上门 over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Illustration:

The first question investors asked me in my early months of pitching was, 鈥淲here are you from?鈥�

The accent gave me away every time.

Following the failed 2020 revolution in Belarus, I moved my company, , to Estonia. I arrived in Estonia with no English, no network and no understanding of the Western startup world. I spent months studying the language, practicing daily to improve my pronunciation and confidence.

Even with my very basic English, I started pitching immediately. I met an angel who decided to invest after just one pitch. Only half a year after our relocation, we closed our first round of $250,000.

In today鈥檚 market, where early-stage capital is shrinking, your ability to communicate is as critical as your product. Forty-four percent of U.S. unicorn founders are immigrants, and many of them started as outsiders. You may not 鈥渓ook the part,鈥� but that doesn鈥檛 have to stop you from raising money. It certainly didn鈥檛 stop me.

From that experience, here are three lessons that I believe are highly valuable for any founder aiming to stand out.

Position yourself as a problem solver, not a capital-raiser

Investors meet hundreds of founders each year. Most of them open with how much they鈥檙e raising, not why they exist. When I started framing myself as someone obsessed with solving a real communication problem, not someone asking for capital, everything changed.

People invest in clarity and conviction. Instead of limiting myself to talking about market size or monetization, I illustrated the problem: how speech anxiety, accents and vocal tension limit people鈥檚 confidence globally. When your story is rooted in a genuine mission, your accent, location or background stops being a liability and becomes part of the proof.

Use body language to communicate confidence

How you carry yourself speaks louder than your words. Investors read it instantly. For example, if you lean back when challenged, it looks defensive. That鈥檚 why when I answer questions, I lean slightly forward, smile and nod. It signals that I鈥檓 engaged and listening instead of trying to protect myself.

Confidence also shows up in stillness. When you know your material, you don鈥檛 need to over-gesture. Remember that the goal is not to perform, but to connect. Smile first, listen fully and never interrupt. These small actions create a sense of trust long before you start talking about numbers.

The studies we relied on in product development show that voices with a lower pitch are perceived as 40% more confident and authoritative. Founders don鈥檛 need to fake that, but they can train it, the same way they can train their pitch deck.

Use pitch competitions as leverage

As I worked on my communication skills, pitch competitions became my springboard. They didn鈥檛 guarantee investment, but they built momentum. And in three first years, we won six: , , StartupFair, AWS AI Challenge, the European AI Startup Program by , and . Those events brought us $700,000 and connections that led directly to our seed round.

Beyond the funding, there鈥檚 enormous value in visibility. By participating in these competitions, you get feedback, credibility and stage time. All of that accelerates learning and helps you make your story resonate across languages, markets and personalities.

When you don鈥檛 sound like an insider, raising capital is about clarity, control and presence. Investors may notice your accent in the first five seconds, but if you master those next five minutes, they鈥檒l remember your idea, not where you came from.

Founders are obsessed with anxiously trying to get in front of investors, but anxiety kills a sale. You’ve already heard the advice from a startup mentor: practice your pitch, find your own mentors, and get feedback on your ideas.

In my experience, ideas and passion are key, but it’s your polished soft skills that actually let you show that passion to anybody.

is the co-founder and CEO of , a soft skills AI coaching startup. The company has more than 4 million downloads and 50,000 subscribers worldwide. His journey is deeply personal; he was bullied for unclear diction at school, which inspired his mission to help people communicate better. After being forced to flee his home country following the 2020 revolution, Lahoika arrived in Estonia with minimal command of English and used his own app to train his voice, securing his first round of funding within just six months. The winner of the AI Challenge and x European AI Startup Program, Vocal Image recently raised a $3.6 million seed round led by (France) and scaled to more than $14 million ARR.

Related reading:

• The Immigrant Edge: How Foreign-Born Entrepreneurs Drive America鈥檚 Unicorn Boom
• New To Silicon Valley? What I Wish I鈥檇 Known As An Immigrant Founder Back In 2017

Illustration:

This report was produced through a collaboration between the California Partners Project, illumyn Impact and 附近上门.聽

Executive summary

If social media has taught us anything, it鈥檚 that new technologies can have widespread and often unanticipated effects. They can change not only how we work but also how we think and how we relate to each other.

Artificial intelligence has an unprecedented potential to shape our future in exciting and unforeseeable ways. As business leaders and government agencies around the world grapple with the responsibility of managing the risks that accompany the promised rewards of AI, one immediate and place to start is building a diverse board of directors. Yet our research indicates that, on that front, AI company boards fall woefully short.

Boards that fail to reflect a wide range of experiences and viewpoints are not well-positioned to oversee companies whose products may determine how bank loan applications are evaluated, how healthcare issues are diagnosed, or how educational resources are allocated. Although no single measure can ensure responsible AI development, diverse board leadership is vital for companies creating technologies that will fundamentally reshape how we live, work and interact.

Within this study, we look at gender diversity, which is reasonably measurable, as a proxy for diversity of perspectives, life experience, areas of expertise and other demographics. To understand the gender mix on AI boards, we analyzed the board composition of more than 140 AI companies headquartered in California, where venture-backed AI development is concentrated. Our study focused on 102 private companies that have raised at least $50 million in cumulative funding. As we鈥檝e seen time and again, transformative innovations are as likely to come from today鈥檚 nascent startups as they are from established industry leaders. Governance of these companies during their high-growth, pre-IPO period is as it is after they go public. We also looked at the boards of 39 publicly traded AI companies for comparative purposes.

Our analysis revealed a striking lack of gender diversity among the people who govern some of the world鈥檚 most influential AI startups. Women comprise only 15% of the boards of private AI companies. More than 40% of these private boards don鈥檛 have any women directors.

Two root causes contribute to this gender disparity 鈥� one structural and one behavioral. First, investors and founders collectively hold the majority of private company board seats, and women are still underrepresented in those categories. Second, when appointing independent directors, boards often limit their consideration to familiar candidates instead of seeking qualified experts outside their immediate networks.

The good news: There are plenty of executive women and people of color on the cutting edge of AI innovation who are ready to bring their voices and operating expertise to the boardroom.

Companies that prioritize building a diverse board need only to look beyond their existing networks to find a wealth of AI board talent. Consider this precedent: Five years ago, one-third of all had no women board members. With focus and effort, all-male boards are now the rare exception.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, companies need to act now, while the technology and its applications are still emerging. CEOs and board members who bring more women and people of color into their boardrooms will help create a productive and healthy AI-powered future for all of us.

Key findings

Among the AI companies headquartered in California included in our study:

• 15% of private company board members are women;
• 43% of private company boards don鈥檛 include any women directors;
• Women who serve on private company boards are most likely to hold an independent director seat;
• 26% of private company boards don鈥檛 include any independent directors; and
• Publicly traded companies typically have more gender-diverse boards than private companies, but still average only two women per eight-person board.

Women average just one seat in AI boardrooms

Across all of the California-based AI private companies studied, women hold an average of one seat on a six-person board. Among 102 private companies, only five boards (5%) have an equal or greater number of women than men in the boardroom.

More than 40% of private AI companies have all-male boards

Among the over 100 privately held AI companies headquartered in California included in our study, 44 (43%) don鈥檛 have any women in the boardroom.

Gender diversity is slightly higher on the boards of companies with more capital. Among those with cumulative funding of at least $50 million but less than $100 million, 62% have all-male boards. For companies with at least $100 million in funding, that number drops to 32%. This shift likely stems from the addition of independent directors who bring operational and market expertise.

Among publicly traded companies, women hold an average of two board seats, double the average among private company boards. suggests that, to capture the full economic benefits of diversity, boards should include at least three women directors. Just half of the public companies we studied meet that threshold.

For private company boards, independent director appointments offer the fastest route to diversity

Most private company board seats (72%) are held by company executives (the CEO and co-founders, typically) and early investors. Women hold only 10% of these board seats, a reflection of the underrepresentation of women among venture capital investors and the entrepreneurs they fund. Women hold less than in venture capital firms. Companies with women-only founders secured just 3% of AI venture funding in 2023, a number stagnant since 2015.

More than half (55%) of the women directors included in our study hold independent board seats. That is, they are neither tied to the company鈥檚 founding or management team nor investors in the company. Whereas public companies must have a minimum number of independent directors, private companies have no such requirements. Therefore, independent directors are typically added later in a company鈥檚 lifecycle, often as part of preparation for an IPO. The percentage of companies without any independent directors decreases as the level of funding increases 鈥� from 36% for those with $50 million to $99 million to 21% for those with $100 million or more.

Our findings suggest that women are more likely to be appointed to private company AI boards as the second independent director. On boards with only one independent director, women hold 17% of those independent director seats. Among companies with more than one independent director, 67% had at least one woman in that role.

Summary

Women are underrepresented on the boards of AI companies 鈥� especially high-growth, earlier-stage startups. While board diversity is not a panacea, it is one essential element for the companies developing technology with the potential to influence society in profound ways.

To increase the number of women board members, companies should:

• Accelerate the appointment of independent directors;
• Commit to adding directors who expand the diversity of perspectives, skills and experiences on the board; and
• Reach outside existing networks to identify well-qualified candidates.

Companies don鈥檛 need to trade off technical expertise and governance experience to bring diverse voices into their AI boardrooms. They simply need to look beyond their immediate networks.

Methodology

This study follows the methodology utilized in the .

Leveraging the 附近上门 database, we identified 409 companies in the AI industry with headquarters in California. Among them were 40 publicly traded companies and 369 privately held companies with at least $50 million in cumulative funding as of July 1, 2024. To ensure that each company鈥檚 board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, 附近上门 profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For private company boards, we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as 鈥渆xecutive directors鈥� in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on 附近上门 and, when not available, other sites.

About the authors

Co-founded by California First Partner and Olivia Morgan in partnership with the people of California, the is dedicated to championing gender equity across the state and ensuring our state鈥檚 media and technology industries are a force for good in the lives of all children. The California Partners Project tracks and spotlights women鈥檚 representation on corporate boards and offers an Inclusive Boards Playbook Series developed in partnership with 鈥檚 with strategies for board refreshment and culture-building. For more information about the nonprofit organization, visit . Connect with the California Partners Project on and .

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private-market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow 附近上门 on and .

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures, and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world鈥檚 largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

Illustration:

Recently, a stat comparison went viral:

• average viewership: 189,000/game
• average viewership: 120,000/game
• NWSL broadcast deal: $60 million/year
• MLS broadcast deal: $250 million/year

On the surface, it鈥檚 hard to argue with those numbers. If we鈥檙e comparing per-game viewership, it is clear the numbers don鈥檛 line up. NWSL average viewership per game is higher than that of the MLS, yet the MLS is making more than 4x as much as the NWSL in broadcast deals.

But this isn鈥檛 just about math. It鈥檚 about leverage, legacy and the business models we鈥檝e inherited.

To close this gap, we have to understand why it exists.

Mind the gap

When signed its $2.5 billion, 10-year deal with MLS, it wasn鈥檛 simply buying eyeballs 鈥斅爄t was strategically acquiring content IP. The deal secured global exclusivity, in-house production control, a subscription engine (MLS Season Pass), and category ownership within its platform.

By contrast, the NWSL鈥檚 $60 million per year deal 鈥斅爏plit across , , and 鈥� is monumental for a 12-year-old league. But it鈥檚 structured around traditional advertising, linear windows and shared production responsibilities. With fewer monetizable layers, the resulting deal was a lower headline number.

That $60 million per year figure includes production costs, marketing and value-in-kind contributions. Industry insiders estimate the actual cash to the league is closer to $35 million or $40 million.

Digging beyond the headline numbers reveals a key consideration: MLS has 30 teams each playing 34 regular-season matches, while the NWSL has 14 teams each playing 26. So even with the NWSL鈥檚 higher per-game viewership, the MLS produces nearly 3x the total amount of content hours.

Many buyers are still conditioned to value volume over engagement. Therein lie the conditions contributing to the conundrum.

Outdated valuation models

We need to shift our focus to the fact that the audience has moved, and the valuation models haven鈥檛.

The NWSL鈥檚 189,000 average viewership in 2024-2025 reflects explosive growth. Just a few years ago, viewership hovered under 100,000. And unlike legacy leagues, 36% of NWSL鈥檚 audience is male, proving broader crossover appeal.

Yet, buyers are still pricing women鈥檚 sports like it鈥檚 2012.

In 2007, a 13-team MLS was in its 12th year and averaged just 96,000 viewers per game, nearly half of where NWSL is today at the same point in its life cycle.

Somehow, media buyers are anchoring to MLS鈥� 2007 risk profile when assessing NWSL鈥檚 2025 opportunity. That is a blatant mistake that, unfortunately, suggests a lack of awareness of the full potential of women鈥檚 sports as an asset class. They are entirely different from the men鈥檚 model and cannot be compared to old men鈥檚 figures from a bygone era.

The -WNBA deal tells a similar story. The new NBA media deal, reportedly worth $76 billion over 11 years, allocates just $2.2 billion to the WNBA. That鈥檚 less than 3%, despite WNBA viewership surging 96% year over year on ESPN and triple digits on .

Again, this isn鈥檛 about performance. It鈥檚 about who had leverage, how risk was priced, and what decision-makers were conditioned to value.

It鈥檚 a misconception that the rise of women鈥檚 leagues threatens legacy properties. In actuality, they expand the total addressable audience. There鈥檚 no need to treat them as a zero-sum game; Caitlin Clark鈥檚 arrival didn鈥檛 stop the 2025 Super Bowl from setting a new U.S. TV record with 127.7 million viewers.

The real risk is underpricing growth just because it doesn鈥檛 fit the old template. So, where does that leave us?

Missed opportunities

If we keep pricing based on history instead of momentum, we鈥檒l continue to miss the biggest upside of this era. The market is failing to recognize what鈥檚 actually happening on the ground, from viewership to fan engagement, and continuing to look for easy comps against old metrics that aren鈥檛 truly comparable.

As an investor and operator, I鈥檝e seen what happens when you bet on markets others deem 鈥渘iche.鈥� Years ago, women鈥檚 health companies like ,, and began as 鈥渆dge case鈥� investments and are now redefining categories. The need was always there. The system just hadn鈥檛 caught up.

Women鈥檚 sports are following the same arc. The difference is that this time, the world is watching and demanding more. We just have to catch the attention of those making these deals to ensure they hear our demands or forge ahead with breaking into those spaces and making our own decisions.

This moment where many are realizing the math isn鈥檛 adding up is a signal to those bold enough to build and brave enough to change how we define value to seize the biggest opportunity in sports today. Don鈥檛 miss it.

is the co-founder and managing partner of and Muse Sport, as well as the chair of the and owner of SailGP Italia. Muse Capital is a consumer technology fund investing in companies that should exist, especially those transforming how we care, live and play. Muse Sport is an advisory business that provides strategic capital, operational support and commercial partnerships to emerging sports properties and infrastructure opportunities. A recognized force in sports, women鈥檚 healthcare and tech-enabled consumer innovation, Grazioli-Venier鈥檚 investment philosophy bridges purpose and performance, focusing on underserved markets with global scale potential.

Illustration:

Executive Summary

Since 2019, when we began benchmarking board diversity among U.S.-based private companies, we鈥檝e seen a significant increase in the percentage of women directors (from 7% to 17%) and a reduction in the number of all-male boards (from 60% to 32%). The improvements we observed over the early years of our six-year tracking study have since plateaued. Recent analysis of the boards of 807 private, venture-backed companies with at least $100 million in cumulative funding reveals no meaningful change compared to the prior year.

As noted in our 2023 report, private company board development likely continues to suffer from a lack of prioritization in light of the relatively and early-stage venture deals in 2024. Without the forcing function of an impending IPO or ready access to capital, CEOs and their boards tend to focus on operational challenges rather than board recruitment.

Several trends point to the potential for renewed momentum in the years to come, notably:

• Younger companies tend to have boards with more gender diversity;
• The percentage of women who hold investor-director board seats has increased significantly; and
• Fewer women directors are the only women in the boardroom, further extending the board network to a broader pool of candidates.

As venture funding increases and the IPO market improves, we expect to see another inflection point in the percentage of women on high-growth private company boards.

Key Findings

• Women hold 17% of board seats among the companies studied, up from 7% in our original study in 2019.
• Between 2019 and 2024, women gained two-thirds of a board seat (0.65); they now represent roughly 1.2 out of 6.9 board members.
• Nearly a third (32%) of companies don鈥檛 have any women on their boards, an improvement from 60% in 2019.
• 23% of company boards include a woman of color, up from 19% in 2020.
• Women hold 28% of independent director seats, 13% of investor director seats, and 10% of executive director seats, up from 19%, 5% and 4%, respectively, in 2019.
• 32% of directors are the only women on their boards, down from 44% in 2020.
• Proportionately fewer companies founded since 2015 have all-male boards (26%) compared with companies founded prior to 2016 (37%).
• The boards of these younger companies are significantly more likely to include a woman investor (17%) than those of older companies (10%).

Methodology

This tracking update largely reproduced the methodology employed with our prior studies published in December 2019, March 2021, March 2022, March 2023 and March 2024. For this update, we analyzed 807 of the most heavily funded private U.S.-based companies to understand the composition of their boards as of Q4 2024 鈥� one year after the prior study and four years after the original.

Leveraging the 附近上门 database, we identified 2,829 U.S.-based private companies founded since 2003 with cumulative funding of at least $100 million as of June 30, 2024. To ensure that each company鈥檚 board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, 附近上门 profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For each company we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as 鈥渆xecutive directors鈥� in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on 附近上门 and, when not available, other sites. For racial/ethnic identity, we leveraged self-identification information where available and supplemented that with contextual information and visual identification. As reflected by data collection, people of color include Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino. Those with MENA backgrounds are not included among people of color.

About the Authors

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly-curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures; and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world鈥檚 largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI, and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers, and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow 附近上门 on and .

Illustration:

The venture capital industry is consolidating rapidly, As capital becomes concentrated among fewer players, underrepresented founders 鈥� particularly women-led startups 鈥� are facing even greater challenges when it comes to securing funding.

Even though women-led startups consistently show lower failure rates and higher returns, startups with only female founders still consistently receive less than 2% of VC funding. This is largely due to implicit biases and pattern recognition. Investors often favor founders who resemble past successes 鈥� typically male-led companies. Larger firms, in particular, prioritize established networks and lower-risk investments. That makes it even harder for entrepreneurs of diverse backgrounds to break into these circles.

Adding to this challenge is rising inflation and economic uncertainties, which have created a greater reliance on bridge rounds and insider-led funding. This trend disproportionately benefits well-connected founders, while underrepresented entrepreneurs who 鈥� in a vicious cycle 鈥� often lack a deep investor network, are left at a significant disadvantage.

Alternative funding

As operational costs rise, startups need more capital, yet with fewer firms actively investing, securing additional funding is increasingly difficult. Furthermore, large VC firms are shifting their focus toward capital-intensive industries such as AI and biotech, leaving fewer opportunities for diversity to succeed in other high-potential sectors such as consumer, healthcare and sustainability.

For underrepresented founders navigating this shifting landscape, it鈥檚 crucial to explore alternative funding sources such as grants, revenue-based financing and corporate venture partnerships. Strengthening mentorship networks and engaging with diversity-focused investment funds can also be vital in expanding access to capital.

Ultimately, institutional investors and LPs must push for greater transparency in diversity metrics and actively support funds that prioritize diverse founders. Despite the significant barriers posed by VC consolidation, women and minority entrepreneurs continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience. By advocating for equitable funding and expanding access to alternative capital, underrepresented founders can work toward securing the investment they need to thrive in 2025 and beyond.

is the founding partner of , where she and her team are active investors in founders that exhibit compelling medical technology, deep technology and beyond. Previously, her experience included working in financial services on the sell-side at Lehman Brothers and Matrix Partners. She passionately and deliberately mentors and searches for female-led companies and believes that investing in women is the best way to bring more women into leadership roles. At her helm, Excelestar Ventures has been named one of the top 100 Women-Led Businesses in Massachusetts by . She is also the managing partner of the Boston Chapter. She is a graduate of and .

Illustration:

Although they make up the majority of Silicon Valley鈥檚 tech workforce, people of Asian descent remain significantly underrepresented in leadership roles: 27% at , 30% at , and 25% at , according to .

The disparity is even starker for East Asians, who face pronounced barriers to advancement due to pervasive stereotypes around leadership style and cultural biases that favor Western communication norms.

This bias extends beyond corporate leadership and into venture funding. Despite their strong track record, East Asian founders don鈥檛 receive investment proportional to their success. If they鈥檙e excelling at building and scaling tech companies, why aren鈥檛 more of them household names?

In my experience, unconscious bias persists in entrepreneurial communities, making it harder for East Asian founders 鈥� whether foreign-born or native-born聽 鈥� to break through. The paradox is clear: East Asians are instrumental to Silicon Valley鈥檚 success, yet they remain overlooked when it comes to leadership and venture funding.

One community that understands these challenges best is the broader immigrant entrepreneur ecosystem. Many immigrant groups, such as South Asians and Middle Easterners, embrace assertive, risk-taking and relationship-driven norms that align more closely with U.S. entrepreneurial culture.

By learning from these approaches 鈥� whether in self-promotion or investor rapport 鈥� East Asian founders can better navigate the biases that have historically held them back.

Tackle cultural myths

The experiences shared by the broader immigrant community can help East Asian founders face certain unique challenges. These two biases often create obstacles.

• Bias #1: The 鈥淢odel Minority鈥� Myth: The perception that Asians are self-sufficient and don鈥檛 need support, which leads to fewer targeted opportunities and mentorship.
• Bias #2: Weaker leadership and sales skills: The assumption that East Asians lack the charisma, decisiveness or persuasion needed to lead companies.

Overcoming these stereotypes requires founders to recognize how they may be perceived and proactively amplify their strengths, but that doesn鈥檛 typically happen in a vacuum.

When I was in business school, I took a course on 鈥渃ross-cultural communication鈥� and learned how cultural norms can heavily shape how you present yourself. In an exercise where we lined up students from different countries by outward confidence, it was no surprise that the Israeli and Lebanese students were ranked the highest.

Spending time with founders from other cultural backgrounds can offer East Asian entrepreneurs insights on leaning into and embracing one鈥檚 own identity as an asset in the founder journey. The community is also an understanding space for them to seek out more guided mentorship.

Meet investors who acknowledge your potential

As a VC focused entirely on immigrant founders, I鈥檝e seen firsthand how difficult it can be for this group 鈥� especially those from East Asian backgrounds 鈥� to communicate certain aspects of their vision and leadership potential. Many come from cultures where humility is a core value.

Seeking out VCs who are immigrants themselves, or who actively support immigrant founders, can provide both practical guidance and psychological support. These investors understand the cultural nuances that shape founders鈥� communication styles and can offer tailored advice on how to navigate investor meetings, refine storytelling and emphasize leadership potential in a way that resonates with their audience.

They may also be more inclined to back you but, even if they don鈥檛 invest, building relationships with these investors is invaluable. Good places to start include funds that focus on immigrant founders, as well as Asian American-focused firms such as and .

The broader immigrant community in the U.S. has been shaped by shared struggles, creating a close-knit network that thrives on mutual support. East Asian founders can learn a lot from how immigrant groups have overcome barriers in business and beyond.

is a general partner at , a VC firm backing exceptional immigrant founders. He specializes in supply chain tech, fintech and digital health.

Illustration: