This tracker includes layoffs conducted by U.S.-based companies or those with a strong U.S. presence and is updated at least bi-weekly. We鈥檝e included both startups and publicly traded, tech-heavy companies. We鈥檝e also included companies based elsewhere that have a sizable team in the United States, such as , even when it鈥檚 unclear how much of the U.S. workforce has been affected by layoffs.

Layoff and workforce figures are best estimates based on reporting. We source the layoffs from media reports, our own reporting, social media posts and , a crowdsourced database of tech layoffs.

We recently updated our layoffs tracker to reflect the most recent round of layoffs each company has conducted. This allows us to quickly and more accurately track layoff trends, which is why you might notice some changes in our most recent numbers.

If an employee headcount cannot be confirmed to our standards, we note it as 鈥渦nclear.鈥�

Global venture funding to financial technology startups totaled $12 billion across 751 deals in 2026 as of April 6, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 a 5% increase in dollars raised compared to the $11.4 billion raised across 1,097 鈥� or 31.5% fewer 鈥斅燿eals during the same time period in 2025.

This trend signals larger deal sizes. Indeed, late-stage or growth funding in the first quarter of 2026 totaled $6.9 billion, up 8% compared to $6.4 billion raised at those stages in the 2025 first quarter.

However, sequentially, the $12 billion raised is down 33% compared to the fourth quarter of 2025, when fintech startups raised $17.8 billion globally. The $6.9 billion raised in late-stage or growth funding is also down markedly 鈥� by 43% 鈥� compared to the $12.1 billion raised by fintech startups in Q4 2025.

The trend in the first quarter also mirrors what we saw in 2025 as a whole, with global venture funding to fintech startups climbing to its highest level in several quarters, boosted by later-stage deals.

Total global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 an approximately 29.3% increase from 2024鈥檚 total of $41.6 billion raised.

US booms

U.S.-based startups have historically raised more fintech funding than any other country in the world, and the first quarter of 2026 was no different.

Of the $12 billion raised by startups globally, just over half 鈥� or $6.3 billion 鈥� flowed to fintech companies based in the U.S. That was an impressive 47% increase compared to the $4.3 billion raised by U.S. fintech startups in the 2025 first quarter. However, it was down 50% from the $12.6 billion that U.S. financial technology startups raised in the fourth quarter of 2025.

The United Kingdom was the second-largest recipient of venture capital, with startups in the region raising a total of $1.2 billion. India came in third, raising $900 million.

Big deals for unicorns

Several fintech startups raised nine-figure rounds in the first quarter, with some doubling their valuations since their last venture financings.

Predictions marketplace was the largest recipient of capital in the first quarter. In March, the company doubled its valuation to $22 billion in just three months with a $1 billion raise led by . The New York-based startup had just raised $1 billion in Series E funding at an $11 billion valuation in December.

In February, , a digital savings platform, raised $385 million in a Series E funding round co-led by and . The New York-based startup said its new valuation was $2 billion, double it achieved when raising its $125 million Series D round in December 2023.

And in January, , which is building infrastructure for payments with stablecoins, raised $250 million in a Series C funding round led by . Its post-money valuation was $1.95 billion, up 17x from last March.

Investors remain bullish

, partner and head of U.S. at , said his firm has been investing at a slightly slower pace so far in 2026 than in years past. But he cited it as 鈥渕ore a quirk of deal flow鈥� and where it gets conviction, rather than a decision to slow the firm鈥檚 investing pace.

鈥淚t’s certainly true that macroeconomics and geopolitics play a role,鈥� he told 附近上门 News, 鈥渂ut mostly we’re just focused on finding high-conviction companies to back.鈥�

QED is extremely bullish on the application layer for AI in fintech and stablecoin opportunities, and has backed several startups that Gerety said 鈥渉arness the power of LLMs with the security and reliability guarantees that finance needs.鈥� (, which raised a $45 million Series B in January and is building an AI assistant for financial advisers, is one of those companies.)

鈥淛ust in the last few months, agents are now actually able to be effective in many processing tasks, but the stakes in finance are too high for LLMs to conquer financial workflows alone,鈥� Gerety said. 鈥淔inance runs on trust, not probability.鈥�

Looking ahead, he said QED remains bullish on fintech overall for the year. Part of the excitement is around the fact that larger companies are 鈥渢ransforming鈥� their operations with agentic workflows, Gerety noted.

鈥淢ore and more transformation is moving from the 鈥榗o-pilot鈥� phase, and we鈥檙e moving into the ‘OpenClaw’ phase, when reasoning agents will start to actually do all the work that was too tedious and slow to be done manually,鈥� he added.

The geopolitical situation will likely hinder some companies from taking the IPO plunge, in Gerety鈥檚 view, although a few companies in QED鈥檚 portfolios are 鈥渂ubbling.鈥�

, partner at , said his firm is on track to make eight to 10 core investments in Seed or Series A companies this year 鈥� about the same number as in previous years.

鈥淲e鈥檙e investing in AI-enabled applications while maintaining patience and focus in our deployment of capital,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e look for durable, enduring businesses that we believe will withstand the current hype cycle and investment frenzy.鈥�

While TTV is investing in AI-enabled companies, Kapur said it also agrees with that 鈥渁n AI reset is coming.鈥�

鈥淢any investors have already made their money by getting in on the ground floor, and others are trying to replicate their success,鈥� he told 附近上门 News. 鈥淲e鈥檙e focused on investing in the application layer of AI, and we鈥檙e still in the early days with more widespread prosperity and a democratization of enterprise value creation yet to come.鈥�

In particular, TTV sees the biggest opportunity in early-stage AI-native companies that are solving problems in mission-critical workflows 鈥渨hile building durable moats.鈥�

鈥淭hese platforms will earn the right to be distribution endpoints for financial products 鈥� and are even more valuable in the age of AI,鈥� he said.

He believes we may see some fintech IPOs in 2026, but that they will largely depend on how the potential mega IPOs (from the likes of , and ) perform.

鈥淚f those IPOs underperform, others may opt to stay private longer,鈥� Kapur said.

Looking ahead, he predicts we鈥檒l continue to see accelerated adoption of AI in financial services, first through straightforward applications, then more operationally complex use cases.

鈥淢ore broadly, we鈥檙e watching how the foundational LLMs further move up into the application layer, which is imperative to the long-term sustainability of their business models,鈥� Kapur said. 鈥淲e think financial services and fintech are unique enough categories where de novo startups and standalone businesses will beat platforms building experimental applications.鈥�

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Funding Jumped 27% In 2025 With Fewer Deals But Bigger Checks
• Kalshi Secures $1B To Expand Predictions Market Platform
• Digital Savings Startup Vestwell Lands $385M, Doubles Valuation
• Stablecoin Startup Rain Raises $250M Series C at $1.95B Valuation 鈥� Its Third Round In Less Than A Year
• Exclusive: Zocks Raises $45M Series B From Lightspeed, QED For AI Assistant To Financial Advisers

Illustration:

The first quarter of 2026 was unlike any other for venture investment, driven by unprecedented spending on AI compute and frontier labs. 附近上门 data shows investors poured $300 billion into 6,000 startups globally in the quarter, up over 150% quarter over quarter and year over year.

That marks an all-time high for global venture investment not approached by any other quarter on record. In fact, startup investment in the first quarter of 2026 alone totaled close to 70% of all venture capital spending in 2025. The quarterly sum also tops all full-year investment totals prior to 2018.

Q1’s startup investment largely went to AI startups and disproportionately to a handful of U.S.-based companies in record-setting deals. Four of the five largest venture rounds ever recorded were closed in Q1 2026, with frontier labs ($122 billion), ($30 billion), ($20 billion) and self-driving company ($16 billion) collectively raising $188 billion, or 65% of global venture investment in the quarter.

Overall, AI shattered records last quarter, with $242 billion 鈥� 80% of total global venture funding in Q1鈥� going to companies in the sector. The previous record was set in Q1 2025, when AI accounted for 55% of global venture funding.

Table of Contents

• Valuation surge, capital concentration
• US above 80%
• Late-stage hike
• Early stage up over 40%
• Seed funding up over 30%
• IPO slowdown, M&A pick up
• Public pressure
• Methodology
• Glossary of funding terms

Valuation surge, capital concentration

Along with the three major frontier labs and Waymo, another 10 companies raised funding rounds of $1 billion or more in Q1, in sectors spanning generative and physical AI, autonomous vehicles, semiconductors, data centers, robotics, defense and prediction markets.

Those outsized rounds pushed overall startup valuations higher in Q1. The 附近上门 附近上门 added $900 billion in value during the quarter, marking the largest valuation bump in a single quarter.

US above 80%

U.S.-based companies raised $250 billion, or 83% of global venture capital in Q1, 附近上门 data shows. That鈥檚 up significantly from 71% in Q1 2025, which was already well above historical averages in the decade before 2024.

The second-largest market globally for venture funding in Q1 was China, with $16.1 billion invested. The U.K. followed, with $7.4 billion invested. Both countries were up quarter over quarter and even more significantly year over year.

Late-stage hike

The Q1 funding surge was concentrated in late-stage funding, which reached $246.6 billion 鈥� up 205% year over year 鈥� across 584 deals. A total of $235 billion was invested in 158 late-stage companies that raised rounds of $100 million and more.

Early stage up over 40%

Early-stage funding totaled $41.3 billion across 1,800 deals, 附近上门 data shows.

Funding was up marginally quarter over quarter but up 41% year over year from $29.4 billion. Much of that increase went to Series A rounds, 附近上门 data shows. Series B deals were down quarter over quarter but still up year over year.

Seed funding up over 30%

Seed funding totaled $12 billion, up 31% year over year, though the increase was entirely due to larger rounds, with deal counts falling 30% year over year to 3,800.

IPO slowdown, M&A pick up

Record venture investment in U.S. companies did not translate into a stronger IPO market in Q1.

In fact, the U.S. market for new listings slowed in Q1 amid a broader stock market selloff in software, although China鈥檚 IPO market picked up.

A total of 21 venture-backed companies exited globally above $1 billion in Q1. Thirteen of those were from China, four more from elsewhere in Asia, and four from the U.S.

The largest IPO in Q1 was Japan-based , a fintech for mobile payments valued at $10 billion upon listing.聽 Two foundation lab companies from China 鈥� and 鈥� debuted on the , each valued at more than $6 billion.

While the IPO market was somewhat lackluster, startup M&A was strong in Q1 with exits cumulatively valued north of $56.6 billion, 附近上门 data shows. That marked the third-highest startup M&A quarter since the downturn of 2022.

The largest M&A deals in Q1 were 鈥檚 $6 billion planned acquisition of 鈥檚 gaming platform , and 鈥檚 planned $5.15 billion acquisition of fintech startup .

Public pressure

While frontier lab megarounds defined Q1 2026, a closer look at the data shows every startup funding stage grew last quarter, as did round sizes across the board.

And unlike the cloud and mobile era, this cycle is also being built in the physical world, with massive capital flowing not just into software, but infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, robotics and manufacturing.

Now, with startup valuations surging and a backlog of companies with unprecedented sums of private capital behind them, pressure is intensifying on the IPO markets to reopen in 2026.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from 附近上门, and is based on reported data. Data is as of March 31, 2026.

Note that data lags are most pronounced at the earliest stages of venture activity, with seed funding amounts increasing significantly after the end of a quarter/year.

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. 附近上门 converts foreign currencies to U.S. dollars at the prevailing spot rate from the date funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs and other financial events are reported. Even if those events were added to 附近上门 long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Glossary of funding terms

Seed and angel consists of seed, pre-seed and angel rounds. 附近上门 also includes venture rounds of unknown series, equity crowdfunding and convertible notes at $3 million (USD or as-converted USD equivalent) or less.

Early-stage consists of Series A and Series B rounds, as well as other round types. 附近上门 includes venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $3 million, and those less than or equal to $15 million.

Late-stage consists of Series C, Series D, Series E and later-lettered venture rounds following the 鈥淪eries [Letter]鈥� naming convention. Also included are venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $15 million. Corporate rounds are only included if a company has raised an equity funding at seed through a venture series funding round.

Technology growth is a private-equity round raised by a company that has previously raised a 鈥渧enture鈥� round. (So basically, any round from the previously defined stages.)

Illustration:

Swarmer鈥檚 debut is modest by tech IPO standards. The Austin, Texas-based startup sold 3 million shares at $5 apiece, raising about $15 million in the process and giving it an initial market cap of $60 million. But by the close on Tuesday, its market cap had soared to more than $382 million.

Its IPO, of course, comes at a prescient time, with the U.S.鈥� war in Iran spiraling into a larger regional conflict even as the Russia-Ukraine war continues into its fifth year.

Public-market investors鈥� reception for Swarmer mirrors the fervor with which venture investors have backed defense tech startups in recent years. Investment to venture-backed companies in the sector 鈥斅爓hich we define as the industries of military, national security and law enforcement 鈥� topped $8.4 billion last year, an all-time record and more than double 2024鈥檚 total, per 附近上门 .

Among 2025鈥檚 top venture-funded defense companies were Southern California-based , which raised a $2.5 billion Series G led by ; Germany-based , which raised about $693 million in a round led by , , and other investors; and Austin-based , a maker of unmanned maritime security vessels that raised $600 million in an -led round.

Potential defense tech IPOs

Swarmer鈥檚 impressive public-market entrance could pave the way for other defense tech startups to pursue IPOs. Using 颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 , we鈥檝e put together a list of 12 other defense startups that are deemed likely IPO candidates.

Methodology

颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 utilize 附近上门 data 鈥� including funding and valuation, and milestones such as financial growth, key leadership hires, market share expansion and headcount growth 鈥� to forecast the likelihood of a private company launching an IPO, providing a probability score and its supporting evidence. Read more about 颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 Predictions & Insights and its methodology for IPO predictions .

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• 5 Startup Sectors Seeing Big Funding Growth
• Defense Tech Unicorn Onebrief Raises $200M, Acquires Seed Startup As VC Funding For Military-Related Tech Surges
• Sector Snapshot: Defense Tech Funding Hits Record High

Illustration:

To understand what鈥檚 holding the IPO market back and what could unlock it, 附近上门 News recently spoke with , U.S. IPO services leader at , via email. He discussed how companies are rethinking IPO timing this year, how investor expectations have shifted since the 2021 boom, and why the next wave of large listings could raise the bar for smaller and mid-cap tech companies.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

附近上门 News: How are companies thinking about timing, pricing and capital needs in this uncertain market?

Bellin: The companies we work with have become significantly more sophisticated in their approach to all three dimensions, and the most important shift we’ve seen is a move away from calendar-driven thinking toward readiness-driven thinking.

On timing, companies are no longer asking “when is the window?” They’re asking, “Are we ready when the window opens?” That’s a meaningful evolution.

After years of intermittent issuance windows, late-stage companies have learned hard lessons about the cost of being caught flat-footed. The companies that priced successfully in 2025 had invested 18 to 24 months in advance in governance upgrades, financial reporting infrastructure, and refinement of their equity story.

That institutional preparation is now table stakes. As we’ve noted in our , market windows can open and close quickly, which makes continuous readiness and flexibility essential, regardless of where macro conditions stand on any given day.

On pricing, there’s been a healthy reset in expectations. The exuberance of 2021, when companies could access the market at growth multiples untethered from near-term fundamentals, is not what we’re operating in today.

Investors today are paying a premium for scaled, cash-generative stories with clear paths to profitability. That means founders and their boards have had harder conversations about the right price relative to where comparable public companies trade, rather than anchoring to the last private-round valuations.

The good news is that median pre-money valuations have begun to rise for the first time since 2021, particularly for AI-enabled businesses and later-stage companies with clear profitability trajectories. The reset isn’t a permanent discount; it’s a quality filter.

On capital needs, we’re seeing more disciplined thinking about sizing. Nearly every company going public targets a raise that covers 18 to 24 months of operations, ideally through to profitability.

What’s changed is that companies are also thinking harder about their post-IPO capital structure: How do the IPO proceeds interact with existing debt, what is the all-in cost of capital as a public company, and how does the public currency (stock) open doors for strategic M&A or talent retention?

The best-prepared companies treat the IPO not just as a fundraiser but as a balance-sheet transformation.

It feels like the IPO market is moving more slowly so far this year than expected. Why do you think that is? Do you expect it will pick up?

There are several factors at play, and it’s worth separating the structural from the situational.

On the situational side, the October-to-November 2025 government shutdown had a materially disruptive effect on the capital markets calendar that is still being felt. The SEC reported that issuers filed more than 900 registration statements during the shutdown, all of which required review and processing once operations resumed. That backlog doesn’t clear overnight.

Companies that had been in process for a Q4 2025 or early Q1 2026 launch found themselves delayed, recalibrating roadshow timing, and in some cases choosing to wait for the market to absorb other supply first. So, some of the slowness we’re seeing in early 2026 is the shadow of that disruption.

On the structural side, macro uncertainty 鈥� including tariff policy, interest rate trajectory, and geopolitical volatility 鈥� has raised the bar for when boards and investors feel confident enough to move forward. Companies are increasingly patient because they have deep pools of private capital supporting them. That optionality is valuable, but it also means that when uncertainty spikes, the default decision is to wait.

That said, we do expect the market to pick up, and we’re cautiously optimistic about the balance of the year. The underlying fundamentals for the IPO market are strong: 2025 demonstrated healthy investor appetite for high-quality offerings, traditional IPOs raised the most proceeds since 2021, and the backlog of IPO-ready companies entering 2026 is among the largest in a decade, with more than 800 unicorns that have now spent additional years strengthening their balance sheets and operating discipline.

As the clears its backlog and macro visibility improves, we expect activity to accelerate, particularly in AI infrastructure, software and specialty risk. The first few deals of any re-opening tend to be conservatively priced to rebuild confidence, and if those hold their post-IPO performance, the door widens for the cohort behind them.

What sorts of companies do you expect to hit the public market this year?

Based on where investor appetite is concentrated, we see the strongest IPO pipeline in several distinct sectors. AI infrastructure, including data centers, power capacity, and chip-adjacent services, leads the pack.

Physical AI: Investor demand for direct exposure to the physical layer of the AI economy is significant, and large-scale, capital-intensive businesses in this space have been able to command premium valuations. The 2025 AI infrastructure IPO set a powerful precedent: Institutional investors proved willing to underwrite capital-intensive, high-growth models when the contracted revenue visibility is strong.

AI-enabled software: This also continues to be a top investor preference. The key distinction from earlier software cycles is that investors are no longer willing to pay high multiples purely on growth. They want to see that AI is genuinely embedded in the product, that net dollar retention is strong, and that the path to margin expansion is credible. Platforms with high switching costs and essential utility are commanding the best multiples.

Insurance and specialty risk: This sector had a strong 2025, and that momentum is continuing into 2026. These businesses tend to offer the cash-flow predictability that institutional investors increasingly prize.

Industrials, aerospace and defense: These are also moving up the IPO pipeline, supported by reshoring policy tailwinds and supply-chain realignment.

How are these listings influencing the strategies of smaller and mid-cap tech companies?

It is real and somewhat sobering. High-profile listings serve as both a benchmark and a warning.

When a well-known, scaled company prices and trades well post-IPO, it recalibrates expectations across the sector, validating the category and giving smaller companies a comparable reference.

But it also raises the implied bar. Investors who have a scaled, cash-generative AI infrastructure company available at a $40 billion to $50 billion valuation will apply that lens to every software or infrastructure company in their pipeline.

Smaller companies are watching their larger peers closely and, in many cases, extending their private timelines. They use the interval to strengthen unit economics, hit profitability milestones, and build out the public company infrastructure (board composition, financial controls, investor relations capability) that institutional investors now expect to see in place on day one.

Given that 2026 has seen a massive surge in venture secondaries, is an IPO still the 鈥淕old Standard鈥� exit? Or is PwC seeing founders use secondaries to delay their IPO even further?

This is one of the most important structural questions in the private markets right now, and the honest answer is nuanced.

The IPO remains the aspirational end-state for most venture-backed companies. It provides the broadest access to capital, the most liquid currency for acquisitions and talent retention, and the clearest signal of institutional legitimacy. In that sense, it retains its status as the gold standard. But what has clearly changed is the sequencing and the role that secondaries play in getting there.

The secondary market has undergone a structural transformation. What was once considered a signal of distress 鈥� such as an insider selling before a company was 鈥渞eady鈥� for the public markets 鈥� has been normalized as a sophisticated liquidity tool.

As noted in our , nearly half of asset managers are already using continuation funds to unlock liquidity, and GP-led secondaries and continuation vehicles are now mainstream instruments. Secondary transaction volume surpassed $60 billion in 2025, and the market is projected to continue growing significantly in 2026. Secondaries are expected to remain the dominant exit route for private equity, with IPOs still accounting for only a limited share of total private equity exits.

For founders specifically, we see secondaries being used for several distinct and legitimate strategic purposes:

First, personal liquidity without forced exit timing. Founders who are a decade or more into building their companies have reasonable personal financial planning needs. Secondaries allow them to diversify without forcing the company into a public exit on a suboptimal timeline.

Second, employee retention. Extended hold periods have put pressure on the equity value of employees who joined years ago and expected a liquidity event. Secondary programs provide a release valve, allowing companies to retain talent they might otherwise lose.

Third, valuation discovery in a more forgiving setting. Private secondary pricing, while increasingly sophisticated, is still conducted without the full scrutiny of a public offering, allowing companies to establish a market-clearing price on their own terms.

What we caution founders about, however, is treating secondary access as a reason to indefinitely postpone the public markets journey. The median time to IPO for companies that went public in 2025 has reached over 11 years, the longest in a decade.

Extended private holding periods can be constructive, but they also delay price discovery, compress LP distributions, and ultimately reduce the competitive tension that keeps acquisition valuations high.

The IPO window is selective but open, and companies with the right fundamentals shouldn’t mistake the availability of secondary liquidity for permission to wait indefinitely.

Is PwC advising late-stage founders to prioritize GAAP profitability over top-line growth to satisfy the current 鈥渇light to quality鈥� among institutional investors?

We’re not advising founders to make a binary choice between growth and profitability, but we are advising them to have a credible, investor-grade answer to both.

The market signal from 2025 and into 2026 has been clear: Institutional investors are no longer willing to pay premium multiples on growth alone. The “Rule of 40,” the principle that a company’s revenue growth rate plus its profit margin should exceed 40%, and which may now be more a rule of 60, has re-emerged as a baseline screening metric for public market investors evaluating software and tech businesses.

Investors are paying a premium for scaled, cash-generative stories with clear paths to profitability. The emphasis is on paths.

GAAP profitability at the IPO date is not a requirement, but an articulated, credible, time-bound roadmap to it absolutely is.

What has changed is the tolerance for ambiguity. In 2021, investors were willing to fund a narrative about future profitability at an indefinite horizon.

Today, they want to see demonstrated progress in unit economics, such as improving gross margins, reducing customer acquisition costs as a percentage of revenue, and expanding net dollar retention, paired with a specific operating-leverage story. When do sales and marketing efficiency improve? When does R&D spend as a percentage of revenue compress? Where does operating margin land at scale? These are questions that founders must be able to answer with precision, not just aspiration.

The GAAP-versus-non-GAAP debate is also something we work through carefully with companies. Adjusted EBITDA and non-GAAP operating income are widely used and accepted, but institutional investors have become more sophisticated in looking through those metrics to understand certain adjustments as a real economic cost, and to evaluate true free cash flow generation.

Companies that present GAAP financials in a clear, transparent, investor-friendly way, rather than burying them under adjustments, tend to build more durable institutional credibility.

Our practical advice to late-stage founders is this: Make sure your growth spending is efficient and that every dollar of investment is generating measurably improving unit economics.

The investors we work with are sophisticated enough to reward capital-efficient growth with premium valuations and to discount growth that appears to require permanently escalating spending to sustain it.

Governance maturity, financial reporting infrastructure, and a compelling, data-supported equity story are as important to IPO success today as the top-line numbers themselves.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• IPOs Are Holding Up In 2026, But SaaS Debuts Aren鈥檛 Happening
• 鈥榃hy Not?’ How Sales Automation Unicorn Clay Uses Tender Offers To Reward Employees Without An Exit In Sight
• The IPO Window Won鈥檛 Stay Open On Its Own

Illustration:

Founded in 2025 by brothers (24) and (20), San Francisco-based Denki aims to build 鈥渕odern鈥� infrastructure for financial audits, which verify that financial statements are accurate and controls are functioning. The startup wants to help replace manual, 鈥渆vidence-heavy鈥� processes with software automation that makes audits run more like code.

鈥淒enki helps auditors review and prepare evidence more quickly, document their work more effectively, and test process controls more rigorously,鈥� CEO Felipe told 附近上门 News. 鈥淲ith higher risk coverage and reduced costs, public companies can comply better with financial regulations.鈥�

and co-led the raise, which included participation from , and others. Denki also participated in YC鈥檚 Fall 2025 cohort.

The raise comes amid a broader surge in funding to fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI in their offerings. Global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $52.9 billion in 2025, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 a 27% increase from 2024鈥檚 total of $41.6 billion raised.

Interestingly, the most-active investor in the space by far all year, in terms of deal volume, was Denki backer Y Combinator, which participated in 151 fintech startup deals last year. That鈥檚 up 24.8% compared to the 121 deals it wrote checks into in 2024.

Landing on capital and an idea

The two brothers grew up in Spain and the U.K. Upon moving to London to study computer science, the pair participated in hackathons organized by , , and VC-sponsored programs, and won several competitions.

鈥淭hat opened up opportunities, including being offered a $135,000 pre-seed check before we had an idea, which we declined,鈥� Felipe recalls.

The brothers eventually accepted a small angel check from a former staff research scientist at , which gave them a few months of runway to explore ideas before being accepted into the Y Combinator Fall 2025 batch.

鈥淲e spent time digging into compliance and landed on audit. It is a technically rich problem, with large volumes of unstructured data, high regulatory stakes and very little modernization in tooling,鈥� Felipe said. 鈥淚t also connected naturally to what we had each been doing.鈥�

David was building financial data pipelines at 鈥� a company trusted by top hedge funds 鈥� turning messy data into usable information. Felipe was working on his Ph.D. in explainable AI at , evaluating vision-language models and making black-box systems 鈥渋nterpretable.鈥�

They discovered that a common approach to addressing all the manual work required by auditors was to build Excel extensions designed to make audit work faster.

鈥淲e believe it is worth changing the status quo by moving away from Excel as the primary workspace,鈥� Felipe said.

Denki, he said, offers cleaner logs and less room for sample manipulation. Also, because the brothers have a research background, they are 鈥渃onstantly鈥� staying on top of new concerns.

鈥淥ne major audit risk today is AI fraud,鈥� said Felipe. 鈥淭here is promising research on detecting forged AI-generated receipts using invisible watermarks, and translating that research into something auditors can actually use is a big part of what we do.鈥�

Denki makes money by offering a tiered SaaS annual contract that depends on the number of controls automated, team size and other integration factors. Its customers are pre-IPO and publicly traded companies.

Building for a 鈥榟igh-stress industry鈥� under scrutiny

Denki鈥檚 founders believe their solution is timely. Last year, the imposed the third-highest cumulative penalties in its 21-year enforcement history, totaling $17.7 million, to a report. That was after issuing a record $35.7 million in penalties in 2024. The Jin Li brothers believe those metrics signal that 鈥渟crutiny is intensifying even as traditional methods strain under complexity.鈥�

For now, Denki is a two-person company, but it plans to hire engineers and auditors with its new capital.

, Base10 Partners co-founder and managing partner, told 附近上门 News that his firm was impressed by the brothers鈥� 鈥減assion for the industry鈥� and their focus on automating 鈥渧ery discrete tasks鈥� for auditors.

鈥淚t was unusual to see such young people so strongly empathetic to issues in auditing but it was clear they were determined to build something great for this industry,鈥� he wrote via email.
鈥淏ut also it’s a large market that is burdened with labor supply constraints (which is not getting any better), in a high-stress industry with ever increasing scrutiny.鈥�

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Funding Jumped 27% In 2025 With Fewer Deals But Bigger Checks
• Y Combinator Was By Far The Most-Active Fintech Investor in 2025, Data Shows
• Here Are The Fintech Companies That Could Go Public In 2025

Illustration:

In the less imaginative realm of venture funding, the term denotes a far less magical but much more visible creature: A space tech company with major funding and a valuation north of $1 billion.

These days, this more staid version of space unicorn is moving up the funding tallies at a faster-than-usual clip. More than two dozen companies in the sector have raised rounds of $100 million or more in the past year, per 附近上门 data.

Meanwhile, the biggest unicorn of all 鈥� 24-year-old 鈥� is reportedly seeking a valuation of around $1.5 trillion for an anticipated IPO later this year, featuring rocketry and satellite technology that should make even marshmallow lasers look primitive.

The broad trend: Unlike most startup sectors, which have seen uneven rebounds after hitting a funding peak over four years ago, space tech is hitting fresh highs. Contributing factors include public market enthusiasm for the sector, increased appetite for defense-related investments, and of course advances driving cheaper, more scalable and more technologically sophisticated orbital operations.

The numbers: Venture funding to companies in 附近上门 space tech and satellite categories hit a high last year of over $12 billion. So far, 2026 is off to a brisk start as well, with more than $2 billion in reported investment.

While investment is way up, round counts have remained flatter, as charted below.

Noteworthy rounds

Megarounds have been stacking up over the past six months.

By far the biggest of these was Kent, Washington-based , a developer of reusable rockets. The company announced a Series D extension in October that brought the total round size to $860 million.

Houston-based , which is developing a successor to the International Space Station, was a more recent mega-fundraiser, in new financing in February.

And in the satellite communications space, one of the larger financings came this week, as spinout , a developer of software that configures communications satellites to meet demand, secured funding.

For a bigger-picture view, below we put together a list of eight significant space- and satellite technology-related financings of the past six months.

Exits and more

The IPO market has also been receptive to space tech of late, although companies haven鈥檛 always held on to early gains.

One exemplar of this pattern is , a provider of launch, land and in-space services for national security and commercial customers, that went public in August. Shares of the Cedar Park, Texas-based company soared higher in initial trading but have subsequently shed about half their value.

, a Denver-based defense and space tech startup that went public in June, is also down from its initial trading price. On the flip side, , which went public early last year, is on a tear and was recently valued over $11 billion.

Meanwhile, it鈥檚 still early innings for space tech company , which went public just four weeks ago.

Heating up

Overall, in recent quarters space and satellite tech are looking like a sector in vogue. With large financings, regular IPO activity and a giant SpaceX offering on the horizon, we鈥檙e not seeing clear signs of a slowdown ahead for the space unicorn crowd.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• SpaceX IPO At $1.5T Valuation Would Be 10x Larger Than Biggest VC-Backed Listing Of All Time
• Voyager Technologies Sets Price Range For IPO As Spacetech Funding Takes Off
• Spacetech Startup Funding Charts A New Course
• In The Era Of Unicorn Valuation Escalation, A Trillion Dollars Isn鈥檛 What It Used To Be
• Northwood Space Raises $100M Series B And Lands $50M Government Contract As Space Tech Funding Rockets Higher

Illustration:

Nonetheless, the first couple months of the year have brought a steady stream of market entries from companies in sectors such as construction tech, space tech and biotech. Noticeably absent, however, are new offerings from SaaS companies, long an IPO market staple.

Per 附近上门 data, 11 venture- or seed-backed U.S. companies went public on major exchanges so far this year, raising just over $3 billion. Comparatively, that鈥檚 a fairly robust showing for the first couple months of the year, which tends to be a reasonably active period for IPOs.

Looking at recent years charted below, the first couple months of 2026 are well above the bottom ranks, but still far below the 2021 market peak for volume of offerings and total raised.

Leading offerings weren鈥檛 your typical VC-backed deals

The lineup of companies going public so far this year, however, includes many that don鈥檛 look like your typical VC-backed offering.

This includes the year鈥檚 largest VC-funded IPO: , a service that provides construction equipment rentals and support for building projects. The 11-year-old, Columbia, Missouri-based company raised more than $700 million in its January offering and had a recent market cap of over $7 billion.

The second-largest debut was also somewhat of an outlier: space tech company , which is majority-owned by private equity firm . It鈥檚 down from its initial trading price but recently valued around $3.4 billion.

Per 附近上门 data, there have been six IPOs of venture-backed companies this year that raised $200 million or more, which we list below.

SaaS squashed

It鈥檚 also noteworthy who isn鈥檛 on the list. For years, enterprise software companies have been among the more reliable IPO market entrants. This year, however, they鈥檝e been notably absent as the sector contends with an extended selloff fueled partly by concerns of AI-abetted disruption.

We鈥檙e also not seeing SaaS companies in the immediate IPO pipeline. A perusal of so far this year showed no venture-backed SaaS unicorns that submitted a new IPO filing in 2026.

It鈥檚 a sharp contrast to just a few months ago. One of last year鈥檚 splashiest IPOs 鈥� design software platform 鈥� is now down more than two-thirds from its peak. Another of the more recent big SaaS offerings 鈥� business travel and expense platform 鈥� has shed more than half its value.

Meanwhile, -backed , which provides tools for marketers and app developers, withdrew its planned IPO this month, amid the software route. It鈥檚 likely a delay, as that Liftoff filed a new confidential plan shortly afterward.

IPO market in an odd place

Overall, the IPO market is in an odd place at the moment. It鈥檚 an unfriendly scene for companies with business models viewed as vulnerable to AI-driven displacement. At the same time, there鈥檚 still continued buzz around the potential for record-setting offerings from , and .

Of those, the one rumored to be closest on the horizon is SpaceX, newly combined with at a reported $1.25 trillion valuation. The company is said to be eyeing a market debut as early as this summer.

If that happens, and the current SaaS squeeze continues, it wouldn鈥檛 be surprising to see a pattern of record-setting IPO returns coinciding with a very small number of actual debuts.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Predicts: IPOs Picked Up In 2025 And The Outlook For 2026 Is Even More Optimistic
• 附近上门 Predicts: 15 Companies That Could Go Public In 2026 As The IPO Market Gains Momentum
• SpaceX IPO At $1.5T Valuation Would Be 10x Larger Than Biggest VC-Backed Listing Of All Time
• Yes, I鈥檓 Biased. But Still, Leading Unicorns Like Anthropic Should Be Prepping For IPOs

Illustration:

The creation myth is familiar: founders in a garage, a seed check and then (many years, and many rounds later) an IPO that serves as a liquidity event for insiders. In this story, the public markets are where the startup goes to retire.

But this is historically illiterate. went public in 1997, three years after founding, at a market cap of $438 million. It had $15.7 million in revenue. Nearly everything Amazon would become (the marketplace, , the logistics empire) was built after it became a public company.

The same is true of , and , the latter of which went public at under $1 billion and has since become the most valuable company on Earth.

In the 1990s, the median tech company went public when it was 4 to 7 years old. Public investors didn鈥檛 buy the tail-end of innovation 鈥� they funded the vast majority of it.

It remains true today. Just look at the 鈥淢agnificent 7.鈥�

Amazon vs. WeWork

When the dot-com bubble burst, Amazon鈥檚 stock collapsed to single digits. That crisis forced to restructure the cash conversion cycle, close distribution centers and lay off 15% of staff. Amazon posted its first profitable quarter in Q4 2001. The public market鈥檚 ruthlessness was the forge that hardened the business model.

Now compare this to what the 鈥淧rivate-for-Longer鈥� era has produced. By 2024, the median VC-backed company , a full decade later than many 1990s counterparts.

Shielded from quarterly accountability, short sellers and skeptical analysts, companies like accumulated $47 billion valuations while hiding behind metrics like 鈥淐ommunity Adjusted EBITDA.鈥� When WeWork finally tried to list, the market rejected it instantly. But by then, billions had been wasted. Private market opacity had delayed diagnosis until the rot was terminal.

Discipline creates strength

The data is damning across the board. The 2010鈥�2020 cohort of VC-backed IPOs generated a return relative to the S&P 500. In 2021, only 25% of IPOs were profitable.

went public at a 77% discount to its 2021 valuation. went bankrupt. The Renaissance IPO ETF fell over 50% from its peak.

Meanwhile, 鈥檚 research shows that of a company鈥檚 lifetime value creation now occurs in private markets, accessible only to institutional investors. The returns to innovation have been privatized while the risks have been socialized.

The central paradox is that more private funding has not produced more innovation, it has simply . Abundant capital allowed 鈥渂litzscaling,鈥� promoting growth over efficiency, far longer than the market would naturally tolerate. In the 1990s, a company could burn cash for three or four years before facing discipline. Today, it鈥檚 well over a decade and the result is companies that eventually go public with .

None of this means venture capital is unimportant. Early-stage risk absorption remains vital. But innovation is a lifecycle, and the lifecycle includes a public chapter that is not optional. What matters is the handoff, the transition from private incubation to public maturation, where ideas are tested, funded and held accountable by the broadest possible base of investors. The most consequential companies in technology history made that handoff early. The generation that delayed it has delivered the worst returns and the most spectacular failures.

If innovation is the goal, the handoff matters. And we have been fumbling it.

, a frequent guest author for 附近上门 News, is the research lead at , a platform that allows VCs and angel syndicates to raise and deploy capital globally.

Related reading:

• The Great 鈥楢I Bubble鈥� Debate
• Why Raising Too Much Funding Is Often Fatal
• Should VCs Invest In 鈥楯ockeys鈥� Or 鈥楬orses鈥�?

Illustration:

Over the past two calendar years, acquirers have agreed to pay more than $38 billion to purchase聽1 venture-backed companies in 附近上门 biotech industry categories. So far, 2026 is off to a brisk start as well, with this month to pay up to $2.4 billion for , a startup focused on engineering immune cells in vivo.

Per 附近上门 data, 2025 and 2024 were two of the strongest years on record for biotech M&A. While we鈥檙e still below the 2021 peak, we鈥檙e also well past the subsequent low point, as charted below.

Largest deals in recent quarters

Since last year, at least nine funded U.S. biotech companies have sold in transactions valued at $1 billion or more, including potential milestone payments. Using 附近上门 , we assembled a list, ranked by deal size.

The largest deal was 鈥檚 purchase of , a developer of targeted oral therapies for solid tumors, for $3.05 billion in cash late last year. The pharma giant expressed particular interest in adding Halda鈥檚 clinical stage oral therapy for prostate cancer to its portfolio.

The two next-biggest acquisitions were both in the area of in vivo therapeutics, which enable a patient鈥檚 own body to generate cell therapies that can treat underlying disease.

One was Lilly鈥檚 aforementioned purchase of Watertown, Massachusetts-based Orna, which had聽 previously raised over $320 million in venture funding from lead backers including , and .

The other was 鈥檚 mid-2025 acquisition of , a clinical-stage biotech developing targeted in vivo RNA technologies, with an initial focus on autoimmune diseases. AbbVie agreed to pay up to $2.1 billion in cash to acquire the San Diego-based startup,which previously raised $340 million in venture funding.

Biotech funding share slides, and IPO volume remains weak

While some large acquisitions are happening, the overall picture for biotech funding and exit activity looks more muted.

Last year, less than 9% of all U.S. startup funding went to companies in 附近上门 biotech categories. That鈥檚 the lowest share in years, and largely a function of more capital going to companies in other hot sectors like generative AI.

In terms of total finding, biotech looks more stable. In 2025, just over $25 billion went to U.S. startups in the space, roughly flat year over year.

IPO activity is lower than usual. Last year, just 21 biotech, pharma or medical device companies went public, per 附近上门 data, the lowest number in years.

So far this year, we鈥檝e had four debuts, including most recently the debut this month of , a developer of cancer therapies recently valued around $900 million.

Not a slump, and not a boom

Overall, biotech funding and exit data paints a picture of a sector that鈥檚 neither booming nor in a protracted slump. That鈥檚 not the most exciting place to be, but it can be quite viable for quite a long time.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• In The Era Of Unicorn Valuation Escalation, A Trillion Dollars Isn鈥檛 What It Used To Be
• Biotech Share Of US Funding Hits Lowest Point In 附近上门 History
• Biotech Isn鈥檛 Partaking In The IPO Rebound

Illustration: