The statement was light on details and did not specify the planned offering size or where it will list. For its most recent funding round, a $65 billion Series H funding announced last week, the San Francisco company more than doubled its post-money valuation to a staggering $965 billion.

With that round, Anthropic also surpassed its closest rival, , in terms of last reported valuation. In February, OpenAI announced it had closed a $110 billion round at an $840 billion post-money valuation.

Anthropic has now raised roughly $125 billion from investors, per Crunchbase data.

The path to the public markets

The IPO filing marks an escalation in the race among generative AI behemoths to make it first to the public market. That said, it could still be while.

Before making its market debut, Anthropic must still receive a sign-off from securities regulators on its confidential filing. After that, it will need to submit its public filing, carry out its pre-IPO roadshow, and put the remaining pieces in place for an offering of this presumed magnitude.

How long could it take? It’s unclear, of course, but if we use as a proxy, things could proceed briskly. SpaceX, which is reportedly seeking a valuation of $1.8 trillion or more, submitted its confidential filing on April 1. The company is expected to begin trading this month, with multiple reports citing June 12 as the target date.

If Anthropic follows a similar timeline, we could potentially see a market debut in August. Before that, however, will be the public filing of its IPO prospectus, which will offer a long-awaited peek under the hood at Anthropic’s famously fast revenue growth and the scope of the capital expenditures it has taken to get there.

As someone who has used the word boring in IPO market headlines many times in the past, one thing that can assuredly be said is that word no longer applies.

Related Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• Anthropic Nears $1T Valuation And Leapfrogs OpenAI On Unicorn Board With $65B Funding Round
• OpenAI’s New $110B Raise At A $840B Valuation Marks The Largest Venture Deal Ever

Illustration:

The conventional fundraising playbook goes something like this: Build your list, craft your deck, start warming intros six months out, and prepare to spend the next year in a loop of coffee chats and follow-up emails that mostly go nowhere.

I did none of that. Not because I had some genius alternative strategy — but because I figured out, early and somewhat accidentally, that the best investors don’t want to be pitched. They want to discover you.

Every meaningful check in our $14 million round came from a personal encounter. A talk I gave. A dinner I attended. A conference I almost didn’t go to. If there’s a single lesson I’d want every first-time founder to take from my fundraising experience, it’s this: stop optimizing your outreach and start engineering the rooms you’re in.

Full disclosure: I went to . I know what you’re thinking: “Of course she raised $14 million — she had the network handed to her.” And look, I won’t pretend the alumni connections didn’t open certain doors. They did. It’s a competitive advantage most founders don’t have, and I won’t insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise. Harvard’s own data shows that have gone on to found for-profit or nonprofit ventures, collectively launching over 146,000 companies globally. But even at Harvard, ’s — and the vast majority of those 146,000 companies never reach meaningful scale. If a diploma were enough, far more of my class would be on .

What a diploma doesn’t give you is a mission people instinctively care about. I’m a Gen Z neuroscientist building technology to solve something my generation knows firsthand: the mental health toll of a world where social media has displaced real human connection. That mission travels on its own.

Investors don’t need convincing that loneliness is a crisis or that the way teenagers relate to each other has fundamentally changed — they see it in their kids, their families, the culture around them. When your problem is self-evident to the people in the room, the pitch is halfway done before you open your mouth.

Reverse the power dynamic

The obvious problem with cold outreach is noise. A partner at a top-tier fund receives hundreds of cold pitches a week. Yours lands in a full inbox alongside dozens of others with equally compelling subject lines.

Even if your deck is exceptional, you’re asking someone to extend trust to a stranger, based on a document, before any human relationship exists. According to , at all. Among those that are read, the conversion rate — the share that leads to any meaningful next step — sits at , even for founders who do everything right.

But there’s a less obvious problem: cold outreach inverts the dynamic you actually want. When you cold pitch, you are the one seeking. You are, structurally, in a position of need.

The investor holds all the leverage.

What I learned — through experience I did not fully understand until I looked back on it — is that every great investor relationship I have started from a moment where they came to me. And the engine behind almost every one of those moments was a room where I was speaking, teaching or simply showing up as someone who had something worth saying. I was never chasing.

Find the right rooms

None of the relationships I’m about to describe started with an email. They started with a room, a talk and a reason to be there that had nothing to do with raising money.

Any room works — if you have something worth saying. You don’t necessarily need to find yourself in prestigious halls. Any room where the right people are present, and you’re there as a voice rather than a business card, will do. A panel at a tech and wellness summit. A founder dinner in Soho where I gave a 10-minute talk on the neuroscience of friendship — the host made three introductions the following week. None of these were “investor events.” They were rooms where people who cared about the mission happened to be. In New York and San Francisco, these happen every day — on , on , through your alumni network. You don’t need a big name to get a small stage. You just need to show up and ask.

The stage size doesn’t matter. Being on it does. The big conferences won’t invite you to speak until you already have traction. That’s fine — because the rooms that actually move the needle are often smaller anyway. , founder of , came through someone who heard me at the . approached me after a sports dinner in London — a room I was in because I’m a marathon runner, not because I was fundraising. The investment followed because we were aligned on something that did matter.

Speak about the problem. Not the product. The talks that generated the most meaningful investor relationships weren’t the ones where I pitched . They were the ones where I spoke about loneliness, neuroscience, and what technology can and cannot do for human connection. The subject matter attracted people who already cared about the mission. By the time anyone asked about the company, they were already bought in on me.

Trust compounds across encounters. One of our key shareholders — a major fund — started with a partner I first met at a conference in Dubai. We ran into each other again at a New York event. And again after that. Three encounters across three cities, each one building a little more context, a little more trust. By the time we were both ready, the relationship already existed. Was it luck? Maybe. But I keep showing up in rooms where the right people are. At some point that stops being luck.

The deck gets you a second meeting. The relationship gets you a yes. An investor isn’t just a wallet. They’re betting on the change you want to make in the world — and on you. The relationship that leads to a check often starts with something human: a shared interest, a run, a conversation that had nothing to do with fundraising. That’s not a bug in the system. That’s the system.

The real lesson: Cold outreach has its place. It works for some people in some contexts, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But if you have a mission that is genuinely worth talking about — and if you can speak about it with conviction — the most efficient thing you can do is engineer visibility in the rooms where your investors already are. Not as a founder seeking capital. As a voice worth listening to.

That’s the posture that builds the kind of investor relationships where someone approaches you after a dinner, or appears in your orbit three times across three cities until trust quietly accumulates. That’s the posture that turns a shared run or a sports dinner into a check from someone who genuinely believes in what you’re building.

The goal isn’t to get lucky. The goal is to make yourself impossible to miss — every time you have a mic, and every time you don’t.

is the founder and CEO of , a Gen Z platform reshaping how friendships begin and grow in person. A solo female founder and member of Gen Z herself, she holds degrees from and in computational neuroscience, neurobiology and behavior. Under her leadership, Clyx has raised $14 million in Series A funding backed by ‘s , co-founder , F1 World Champion , and , and facilitated more than 500,000 real-world friendships across six cities worldwide.

Related reading:

• Where Funded Founders Went To School: 2026 Edition

So far this year, investors have put about $7.8 billion into Boston-area startups, per Crunchbase That puts the region on track for a moderate annual gain and the strongest tally in about four years, as charted below.

Invidious comparison

Under normal circumstances, such numbers might be celebrated as pretty strong. But many Bostonians don’t see it that way.

“For the first time, startups in Texas raised more VC money than those in Massachusetts,” one headline this spring. Earlier this year, another correspondent concerns from local startup backers and builders that the tech startup scene is thinning out.

At root, the issue may not be that Bostonians are delivering so little investable startup talent, but rather that other places are swimming in unprecedented capital. This kind of invidious comparison is particularly stark in the AI realm.

Overall, North America venture funding hit a record high in the first quarter of this year, surging to $252 billion. Of that, more than 87% went to companies in Crunchbase AI-related categories.

Few of those AI mega-fundraisers were in Massachusetts. The biggest, most heavily funded names in generative AI, like , and others, are predominantly headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area. That means Boston didn’t get a slice of history’s largest startup funding rounds.

By contrast, biotech, a traditional area of strength for the Boston area, hasn’t been on a funding tear. True, there’s no dramatic slump. But in a time when a single venture-backed AI company can snag $122 billion in a , biotech round sizes can’t compete for scale.

Standout rounds

Still, by pre-AI standards of venture funding, Boston has been scaling some heavy hitters.

Per Crunchbase , at least 12 companies in the greater metro area 1 raised rounds of $200 million or more this year, listed below.

The largest round went to , a provider of wearable fitness technology and a subscription platform that raised $575 million in Series G funding at a $10.1 billion valuation in March. The company says it is powered by more than 24 billion hours of physiological data and purpose-built AI models to provide predictive, personalized health insights.

, a provider of consumer privacy and security tools, came in second. It secured $375 million in Series B funding in March led by and .

Next on the list is , which provides healthcare plans to seniors on Medicare. The 9-year-old company disclosed in January that it had closed on $366 million across two Series F funding tranches.

Biotech startups, meanwhile, didn’t make the top 3 but were heavily represented on the list. Overall, more than half of funded startups in the list are focused on biotech or healthcare.

Why compare?

Boston isn’t the San Francisco Bay Area, and it certainly isn’t Texas. So it’s worth asking: What is the point of comparing startup ecosystems? Is a metro area flailing if it doesn’t keep up with a particular major innovation cycle, even if it maintains core areas of strength?

At risk of over-generalizing, we’d conclude that competitive rank still matters. A metro area can retain its crown as a startup innovation hub only if it continues to produce transformative companies.

For Boston, there’s no indication the region is losing its edge in biotech and other sectors where it’s long been an established powerhouse. However, in the generative AI era, it’s also evident that the region has not produced one of the most high-valuation players in the space, and that’s put some ding in the city’s reputation as a leading innovation hub.

Related Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• North America Q1 Funding Surges Across Stages To Record Level
• Whoop’s Wearable Fitness Tech Lands $575M From Athletes, Celebrities, Institutional Investors To Reach $10.1B Valuation

This is a weekly feature that runs down the week’s top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week’s biggest funding deal roundup here.

Venture funding has always been a world of haves and have nots. And these days, the haves are having more than ever. Case in point this week was . The 5-year-old generative AI giant secured $65 billion in Series H funding this week, pushing its post-money valuation to a mind-blowing $965 billion.

After that, the next-biggest financing was a $1 billion round for AI software development tool maker , lifting its valuation to $26 billion. Companies in a range of other sectors also managed to secure sizable though smaller rounds, in areas including commerce logistics, developer AI, insurtech, fusion and more.

1. , $65B, foundational AI: Generative AI company Anthropic raised $65 billion in a Series H funding round, more than doubling its post-money valuation to a staggering $965 billion. San Francisco-based Anthropic said , , and led the financing, and that , , , , and co-led the investment.

2. , $1B, AI software development: Cognition, developer of AI software engineer Devin, has closed on over $1 billion at a $26 billion valuation. , , and 1 led the financing for the San Francisco-based company.

3. , $250M, logistics: Atlanta-based Stord, developer of a fulfillment network, software and AI tools for independent brands, secured $250 million in Series F funding. The round set a $3 billion valuation for the 11-year-old company.

4. , $113M, AI for developers: OpenRouter, a marketplace for AI models, secured $113 million in Series B funding. led the financing for the New York-based startup.

5. , $106M, insurtech: San Francisco-based Corgi Insurance, developer of an AI-native insurance platform for startups, picked up $106 million in Series B1 funding led by . The financing, which set a $2.6 billion valuation, comes just three weeks after Corgi $160 million in Series B funding at a $1.3 billion valuation.

6. (tied) , $100M, fusion energy: Kearny, New Jersey-based Thea Energy, a developer of technology for fusion energy systems, raised $100 million in Series B funding led by . Thea says the funding will go toward manufacturing infrastructure.

6. (tied) , $100M, healthcare data: Garner Health, a platform for finding healthcare providers, closed on $100 million in Series E funding led by . The financing set a $2.74 billion for the New York-based company.

8. , $90M, space tech: Observable Space, a space tech startup that develops and builds advanced optical systems, says it raised $90 million in Series A funding led by to scale manufacturing and develop its technology. The Santa Monica, California-based company also announced that it secured a $94 million contract with the.

9. , $59M, AI video: Reactor, a San Francisco-based developer platform for real-time generative video, emerged from stealth with $59 million in funding led by .

10. , $52M, cancer detection: San Diego-based ClearNote Health, a developer of early detection and monitoring tests for multiple forms of cancer, picked up $52 million in Series D financing. Founding investor led the round.

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the Crunchbase database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of May 23-29. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

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 — those that are at least 50% women-owned — 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.

Crunchbase News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don’t 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.

Crunchbase News: What is your platform’s 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’t 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 — whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” — 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’t see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on “pattern matching,” 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’s 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 “hustlers” 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 — whether that’s acquisition or long-term growth — 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’s How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

AI’s share of venture funding climbed to 80% this quarter, up from 55% a year ago. The deployment is real. The liquidity question behind it is the one founders should be paying attention to.

In 2025, Crunchbase roughly 2,300 venture-backed acquisitions against just 65 IPOs. In aggregate, the LPs sitting behind every venture fund have been in since 2022. Record deployment in Q1 doesn’t change the math at the LP level, and that pressure is reshaping every term sheet, follow-on decision and board conversation in venture right now.

Know what’s actually driving the firm across the table

When a partner walks you through their thesis, they’re telling you a story about your market; rarely are they telling you a story about their fund. That second story determines whether they can write your bridge in 18 months, whether they’ll fight for pro rata in your Series B, and whether their behavior in the next downturn looks like patience or anxiety.

LPs are demanding cash back. Paper markups aren’t enough. Some firms are responding well, consolidating into their best companies and being deliberate about new commitments while others are pretending it’s still 2021. Founders should know which type they’re sitting across from before signing anything.

Ask the questions founders rarely ask

Three reference calls with portfolio CEOs used to be enough due diligence on a VC. Not anymore.

Ask what vintage the partner’s current fund is and how much dry powder is left. Ask how many of their 2018 through 2020 companies have produced realized returns rather than paper markups.

Ask whether their LPs have been pushing for GP-led secondaries. If the answer is yes, the firm is operating under a cash-flow constraint that will show up in your boardroom. These aren’t rude questions. They’re the same ones serious LPs are asking that partner this quarter, and high-quality firms welcome the conversation.

Build your buyer relationships now

If you’re raising in 2026, you’re statistically far more likely to get acquired than to ring the bell at the . Q1 2026 alone produced, the third-busiest quarter since 2022. Of the 21 venture-backed exits over $1 billion globally last quarter, only four happened in the U.S. The exit window for American founders is narrower than the headline funding numbers suggest.

Smart founders design for that reality from Series A. They know which platform companies have an active corporate development team. They build product surface area that maps cleanly into someone else’s stack. They cultivate executive relationships at the most likely acquirers years before any sale conversation, so when one starts naturally the introduction is already there.

Capital is plentiful. Discipline is what separates outcomes.

Every dollar concentrated into the four AI mega-rounds is a dollar that hasn’t returned anything to LPs yet. Founders who understand the LP-to-GP-to-startup chain end up with better partners, smarter terms and companies built for more than one path to a great outcome.

As the co-founder and managing partner of , is committed to establishing MGV as the premier venture firm for world-class tech entrepreneurs to accelerate their visions. Under Schröder’s stewardship, MGV has swiftly ascended to a top-quartile firm, surpassing the performance of 95% of venture funds. The performance of MGV is driven by Schröder’s unique approach to venture investing — that providing intensive sales training, devising robust fundraising strategies and securing follow-on investments is the best way to support founders and drive the deepest return for investors. has recognized him as one of the Top 100 global seed investors, and his perspectives are published regularly in Crunchbase News and other leading publications.

Related reading:

• What The Record Venture Funding Quarter Actually Means For Your Startup’s Fundraise
• Q1 2026 Shatters Venture Funding Records As AI Boom Pushes Startup Investment To $300B

That means the San Francisco-based startup has now surpassed its closest rival, , in terms of valuation. In February, OpenAI announced it had closed a $110 billion round at an $840 billion post-money valuation. That financing marked the largest raise ever, according to .

, , and led Anthropic’s latest raise. , , , , and co-led the round. The financing also included $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, $5 billion from , which, interestingly, also participated in OpenAI’s most recent round of funding.

Anthropic’s massive round comes just over three months after the startup raised $30 billion in a Series G that valued it at $380 billion post-money. It has now raised around $125 billion since its 2021 inception, .

Since that round, Anthropic says it has grown its enterprise customer base. Its run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month, according to the company.

“Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” said , chief financial officer of Anthropic, in . “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.”

Correction: This article has been updated to correct Anthropic’s total funding amount to date.

Related Crunchbase queries:

• The Crunchbase Unicorn Board

Related reading:

• Q1 2026 Shatters Venture Funding Records As AI Boom Pushes Startup Investment To $300B
• OpenAI’s New $110B Raise At A $840B Valuation Marks The Largest Venture Deal Ever
• Anthropic Raises $30B At $380B Valuation In Second-Largest Venture Funding Deal Of All Time

Illustration:

The global innovation economy remains largely defined by agglomeration dynamics. Worldwide, 19 ecosystems dominate the innovation landscape, increasingly concentrating innovation demand (corporates) and supply (scaleups) — attracting further growth capital (investors).

Meanwhile, other ecosystems struggle to achieve a meaningful presence on the global innovation map and are at serious risk of technological disruption and economic downfall.

Yet something is happening below the surface. Over the past decade, the composition of the Global Innovation Ecosystems Life Cycle Curve changed dramatically, as the number of scaleup ecosystems worldwide has more than doubled.

The trend is not stopping just here: we expect these figures to even triple in the coming years.

In this new scenario, emerging innovation economies hold the potential for disrupting the agglomeration paradigm, toward a new scheme of interconnected networks of specialized local innovation hot spots.

Among them, there is also Africa. While the continent still lacks ecosystems at the most advanced stages of maturity, it now counts four ecosystems at the startup stage and 40 at the standup stage, compared with respectively 25 of those 10 years ago, according to by my organization, , in collaboration with and .

Africa: the awakening giant of the coming decade?

As of today, Africa’s innovation economy includes 883 tech scaleups that have raised a combined $24.7 billion. Despite this progress, the continent still represents only about 1% of global figures.

The African innovation landscape remains highly concentrated around four main hubs: South Africa, Egypt (North-East), Nigeria (West Africa) and Kenya (East Africa). The North-Western corner of the continent still lacks a dominant hub, although Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria remain the leading candidates.

A testbed for clean technologies?

Emerging innovation economies that thrive on the global innovation map typically build on top of highly specialized, unique local strengths.

Our recent analysis has identified clear evidence that Africa holds significant potential over the development of clean energy systems and technologies.

The relative prominence of the cleantech sector in Africa is evident from the data:

• Africa is home to 95 cleantech scaleups, representing roughly 11% of the total scaleup base.
• Collectively, they have attracted approximately one-fifth of all capital deployed to African ventures.
• Cleantech has also generated a disproportionate share of high-growth leaders, accounting for around 20% of both scalers (scaleups that raised more than $100 million) and super scalers ($1 billion-plus).

Within cleantech, a highly specialized vertical is also emerging, what we might call “gridtech”:

• It comprises 16 scaleups (17% of the cleantech total) and two scalers (25% of total).
• It has attracted around 30% of total cleantech funding.
• Africa’s sole cleantech tech giant, Kenya-based , operates within this gridtech vertical.

That said, the numbers still point to a gap.

The elephant in the room

The main challenge is the grid infrastructure deficit, which remains the primary bottleneck to scaling energy system technologies. As shown in the map below, Africa’s grid infrastructure is highly fragmented: High-voltage networks are concentrated in a few densely populated areas, while large parts of the continent remain largely disconnected.

As a result, grid infrastructure development and electrification are key to unlocking Africa’s growth — consider that Africa still accounts for only about 5% of global energy supply — and its innovation potential.

At the same time, the continent holds world-class renewable resources, including approximately 13% of global technical hydropower potential and around 60% of the world’s best solar resources.

Africa’s energy system is expanding, but fully unlocking its economic and innovation potential will depend on accelerating electrification and strengthening grid infrastructure.

Blended finance will be critical to enable this growth. Both private and public capital are required: private capital drives innovation, while public finance enables foundational infrastructure such as grid expansion.

In particular, private capital needs to be complemented by structured public finance initiatives to address the inherent limitations of a relatively small domestic VC market, which remains heavily focused on early-stage investments.

Public capital will be essential for infrastructure development. In gridtech especially, public investors are expected to account for up to about 80% of total investments by 2030, reflecting the capital intensity and risk profile of grid infrastructure.

International capital still dominates the market, with approximately 69% of active investors originating outside Africa, underscoring continued reliance on foreign capital despite growing local participation.

Get the full story in our report:

is chairman of and a professor at . He is a serial entrepreneur who has started three startups in his career, the last of which is , among the five Italian scaleups that have raised the largest amount of capital. He is recognized among the leading international experts in open innovation and has wide experience in setting up and managing open innovation projects — venture clients, venture builders, intrapreneurship, CVCs — with large multinational companies, as well as advising and training on this subject. Onetti has a column on () and several other tech blogs.

Photo by on .

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, Crunchbase data shows.

Only around $942 million — or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per Crunchbase data. That’s 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’s important to note that the relatively robust quarter was in large part due to an outsized round — 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’s not surprising that the $643 million raised so far this year was secured across just 34 deals, signaling larger deal sizes overall.

It’s 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’s 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 Crunchbase data.

, managing partner at said the decline in venture funding to Black entrepreneurs coincides with a marked shift in the political environment. “There are fewer conversations on the topic as many are afraid to speak on it directly, which is concerning,” he told Crunchbase News via email.

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

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 Crunchbase 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.

“In an age of AI, who you know matters more than ever,” Pierre-Jacques said. “There 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.”

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.

“This can save significant headaches, time and limited resources, especially during the early stages,” he said. “Black 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.”

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 “adviser-investors.”

“These 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,” 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 “months and sometimes years before you’re ready to raise.”

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.

“I don’t think this is bad counsel,” he told Crunchbase News via email, “especially if it involves an accelerator like the one offers annually.” 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, “we are so far from 2020, not only in the pledges made but also in the social and venture landscape,” Spearman said.

Still, “rather than looking back,” he said, “I’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.”

, 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’s 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.

“To me, this shows early signals that the investment cycle creating wealth from AI is not flowing back to the communities using AI the most,” 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 “to uplift underrepresented founders as much as we can to help them access capital and build their network,” 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’ limited partners.

“GPs 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,” she wrote via email. “Questions on founder demographics, asked consistently and at scale, would do more to shift behavior than anything else.”

Related Crunchbase 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 Crunchbase, 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.

Crunchbase’s 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 Crunchbase 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’s Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

Crunchbase, 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 Crunchbase over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Illustration:

led the round, which included participation from , , , , and others.

Founded in 2020, New York-based Capchase initially made a name for itself by providing revenue-based financing for SaaS companies. However, by late 2022, the company began to evolve into its current iteration: a vendor-financing technology platform. Capchase embeds itself directly into the sales workflows of companies such as original equipment manufacturers, software vendors and cybersecurity providers.

It has entirely discontinued its revenue-based financing, and instead now focuses on B2B buy now, pay later tools that help software and hardware vendors offer flexible payment terms while getting paid upfront.

The concept addresses a longstanding friction point in enterprise sales: vendors want cash immediately, while buyers want to preserve capital. Rather than forcing a buyer to pay $1 million upfront in 30 days, Capchase allows a sales rep to offer more flexible terms — say, $15,000 per month for up to five years. When the deal is signed, Capchase pays the vendor the full amount upfront, net of a financing fee.

“We started to see that there was a very big pull in the market,” , co-founder and CEO of Capchase, said in an interview. “We saw that sales cycles were expanding, CAC was going up, and all of this was driven by the high interest rates. Buyers wanted to pay as late as possible and pay installments.”

He added: “We shipped a product quickly to solve that need, and we started to get very strong market pull to the point that that ended up eclipsing the other product lines, and we decided to focus everything there.”

Displacing a legacy market with AI

The pivot has unlocked impressive growth. Capchase says it has a 400% growth rate over the past 12 months and forecasts another 200% growth in the upcoming year. Its workforce has scaled alongside this momentum, expanding to 75 employees, up from 50 a year ago.

While legacy banks, independent financing firms and captive financing arms have dominated the $1.3 trillion equipment financing market for decades, Capchase says it differentiates itself by replacing 1980s-era workflows with real-time automation.

Traditional financing approvals often require an email-driven back-and-forth that can take four to 17 days, according to Fernandez. Capchase claims to compress that timeline into seconds.

Capchase uses artificial intelligence and machine learning agents across its platform. For example, an “order generation agent” parses uploaded quotes or purchase orders to create flexible payment links in under 60 seconds — down from a manual process that typically took eight hours — according to Fernandez. As another example, an AI email agent automatically handles multiparty coordination between vendors, resellers and buyers, all without human intervention.

“What makes us different is that we are both the lender and the technology. And AI is what makes the combination work at the speed enterprise tech sales demands,” Fernandez told Crunchbase News in an interview. “We built the credit decisioning engines that allow us to look at all the data these other players look at as well, but we were able to do it and infer it in just seconds.”

Moving upmarket and expanding globally

The new capital will primarily support Capchase’s rapid transition into the enterprise space.

“In the past 24 months, we went from serving vendors in the tens of millions of revenue to in the last 12 months in the hundreds of millions in revenue, and now in the multiple billions of revenue,” Fernandez said.

The startup’s platform now underwrites more stable, established borrowers. The average buyer utilizing Capchase has roughly $80 million in annual revenue, has been operating for over 20 years, and is profitable, he added. This profile has allowed Capchase to maintain a highly controlled risk environment and what he described as a “spectacular” default rate.

Capchase currently supports hundreds of tech vendors and tens of thousands of buyers. Its customer roster features enterprise tech giants, public cybersecurity firms and massive distributors, including , , , and .

Though Capchase keeps its specific financials, valuation and cumulative funding figures confidential, Fernandez confirmed that the latest capital injection represents a valuation step up from its 2021 $80 million Series B round. At the time of that raise, the company had raised more than $400 million in equity and debt.

Looking ahead, Capchase will use its fresh capital to scale beyond its core markets in North America — the U.S. and Canada — and Europe, including the U.K., Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, the Nordics and Spain. Driven by direct demand from its enterprise partners, the company is officially entering the Australian market this year.

Reducing friction with flexible terms

, co-founder and managing partner of 01 Advisors, said he was drawn to Capchase primarily because of how AI has helped it disrupt traditional vendor financing.

Incumbents possessed plenty of capital but “have never been forced to build real technology because their customers had nowhere else to go,” he wrote via email.

AI fundamentally shifts this dynamic, allowing Capchase to “underwrite a buyer and create accurate docs in 30 seconds,” he said.

This solution hits close to home for Bain, who previously ran the sales team at and says he intimately understands the friction Capchase aims to eliminate. In traditional enterprise sales, momentum frequently stalls when a ready-to-buy customer hits a roadblock over payment terms, forcing sales leaders to either “discount to close, wait for the next budget cycle, or spend weeks negotiating.”

Those outcomes drain margin or time. Capchase completely removes that friction, Bain said, by offering instant approvals and flexible terms.

Fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI to traditionally manual or burdensome processes, have benefited from increased investment in recent quarters. Global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per Crunchbase . That’s a more than 29% increase from 2024’s total of $41.6 billion raised.

Related Crunchbase query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Startups Globally Raise More Money In Far Fewer Deals In Q1 2026
• Exclusive: Capchase Raises $80M Series B To Give Startups Alternatives To Venture

Illustration: