The output of foreign VCs is higher than that of domestic VCs, with exchange-backed VCs falling in between.

After 48 hours of intense work, here’s a data collection every Web3 player must check.

Among the many VCs in Web3, which ones have the best vision? Which VCs have the highest ROI on their investments? Which VCs offer the best cost-effectiveness for ordinary players to invest early with? Which projects should you back for the best returns? What are the foreign and domestic VCs? Do foreign VCs invest in more promising projects?

These are the questions retail investors care most about, and they are also the focus for first-tier market players (early-stage investors).

In this article, we’ll answer these questions with the most direct data.

All the data comes from online disclosures. We selected 65 VCs in total, including 23 foreign VCs, 34 domestic VCs, and 8 exchange-backed VCs.

The results speak for themselves—VCs’ best investment outcomes are projects that get listed on major exchanges.

Although we know some projects can still be profitable without issuing tokens, this isn’t the type of project most retail investors can get involved in.

Therefore, we use the following dimensions as judgment criteria:

Quantity: VC investment count, number of projects issuing tokens, number of projects listed on Binance, number of projects listed on OKX, number of projects listed on Coinbase.

Listing success rate: Binance listing rate = Binance listings / Total investments, OKX listing rate = OKX listings / Total investments, Coinbase listing rate = Coinbase listings / Total investments.

Judgment conditions: Comprehensive score = 2 Binance listing rate + 1 OKX listing rate + 1 * Coinbase listing rate. Binance has the largest market cap, so it has a weight of 2.

Project average ROI = 15 Binance listing rate + 10 OKX listing rate + 10 * Coinbase listing rate. ROI is calculated assuming an average 15x return for projects listed on Binance, 10x for those listed on OKX and Coinbase.

Let’s first look at the conclusion:

Based on the comprehensive score, we have divided the VCs into five levels: T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4. The higher the rank, the better the VC’s vision, and it’s more cost-effective for us to follow these VCs and invest in the first-tier market.

T0-level VCs: YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), Continue Capital, IOSG Ventures, Bain Capital.

T1-level VCs: Multicoin, Pantera, 1Confirmation, Smrti Lab, Zonff Partners.

T2-level VCs: Polychain, ParaFi Capital, Dragonfly, Sequoia China, Delphi Digital, Electric Capital, Mint Ventures, CoinFund.

T3-level VCs: Framework Ventures, NGC Ventures, SNZ Holding, Coinbase Ventures, OKX Ventures, etc.

T4-level VCs: Animoca Brands, GSR, Hashkey Capital, Waterdrip, LD Capital, etc.

Investment output and ROI rankings by VC region: Foreign VCs > Exchange-backed VCs > Domestic VCs.

T0-level VCs

T0-level VCs include YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), Continue Capital, IOSG Ventures, Bain Capital.

With a comprehensive score >1 and an average ROI between 8 and 12, investing in projects backed by these VCs in their early stages gives us a high chance of significant results. The probability of making substantial gains with individual tokens like A7 and A8 is quite high.

Detailed data is shown in the figure:

T1-level VCs

T1-level VCs include Multicoin, Pantera, 1Confirmation, Smrti Lab, Zonff Partners.

With a comprehensive score between 0.7 and 1, and an average ROI between 6 and 7.5, investing in projects backed by these VCs in their early stages also yields good returns. A 6.5x return is also a great outcome.

Detailed data is shown in the figure:

T2-level VCs

T2-level VCs include Polychain, ParaFi Capital, Dragonfly, Sequoia China, Delphi Digital, Electric Capital, Mint Ventures, CoinFund.

With a comprehensive score between 0.5 and 0.7, and an average ROI between 4 and 6, investing in projects backed by these VCs in their early stages offers somewhat unstable returns, but it might present opportunities worth trying.

Detailed data is shown in the figure:

T3-level VCs

T3-level VCs include Framework Ventures, NGC Ventures, SNZ Holding, Coinbase Ventures, OKX Ventures, etc.

With a comprehensive score between 0.3 and 0.5, and an average ROI between 2.5 and 4.5, investing in projects backed by these VCs in their early stages yields somewhat unstable returns, with relatively low profitability.

Detailed data is shown in the figure:

T4-level VCs

T4-level VCs include Animoca Brands, GSR, Hashkey Capital, Waterdrip, LD Capital, etc.

With a comprehensive score between 0 and 0.3, and an average ROI between 0 and 2.5, investing in projects backed by these VCs in their early stages shows less promising returns and a lower chance of being listed on exchanges.

Detailed data is shown in the figure:

Bonus

Projects invested in by Binance and OKX have a higher probability of being listed on their own exchanges.

For Coinbase, the probability of being listed on the “Big Three” exchanges is roughly the same for projects they invest in.

Summary

Based on the data, we find that some well-known VCs, such as a16z, Coinbase, Dragonfly, and Polychain, are not particularly relevant for ordinary investors. Some projects that emphasize their “VC backing” may actually be traps for retail players.

In our analysis, projects backed by T0 and T1-level VCs are the ones we should focus on and invest in.

Foreign VCs tend to have higher returns than domestic VCs, with exchange-backed VCs falling in between.

When considering whether a project is worth early investment, we should assess the VCs involved and their corresponding levels, using the data presented for a more informed decision-making process in the primary market.

Once again, this article focuses solely on the ROI for retail investors following VCs. It does not discuss the overall strength or other aspects of the companies or brands represented by these VCs!

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reproduced from [TechFlow], and the copyright belongs to the original author [Sege (@EvanCrypto17)], if you have any objection to the reprint, please contact Gate Learn team, the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article represent only the author’s personal views and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Other language versions of the article are translated by the Gate Learn team and are not mentioned in Gate.io, the translated article may not be reproduced, distributed or plagiarized.