VC isn't VC anymore — understanding the rise of Cancer Capital
Anil Dash
Opinion — commentary, not a factual news event.
VC has morphed into something uglier: giant funds now act like political machines, not startup backers. The scary part is they still get treated like normal investors while they reshape tech, money, and elections.
Based on reporting by Anil Dash — read the original for the full story.
Summary, retelling and take written by AI under human oversight; images are AI-generated illustrations. How we work · Report an error
The argument here is blunt: venture capital stopped looking like venture capital a while ago. What used to be a niche source of funding for risky startups has, in this telling, been warped into a system where a small group of huge firms can push politics, move markets, and face almost no real restraint while still wearing the VC label.
The core complaint is scale. Venture was supposed to be a small slice of the capital market, because the whole point was to take high-risk bets inside a broader portfolio that stayed mostly stable. Instead, a handful of firms have grown into massive “do everything” outfits, mixing private equity-style power with venture branding and managing tens of billions of dollars. At that size, the old risk-sharing logic breaks. If a firm collects 2% a year on $50 billion, the money comes in whether the startup succeeds or not.
And that shift changes behavior. The piece says these firms are no longer really exposed to the same consequences as ordinary investors, and because they’ve moved beyond the legal shape of traditional VC, they can buy shares directly from founders, hold unlimited amounts of public stock, move assets between their own funds, and even book gains before a company has made real money. That creates a world of self-dealing that looks less like startup support and more like a machine built to manufacture returns and power.
The political side is just as central. The article points to Andreessen Horowitz and says Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and the firm have put $115.3 million into the current midterm cycle, up from $63 million in 2024, with money going to candidates in both parties. It also cites Molly White’s Tech Influence Watch and says a16z alone accounts for more than 20% of all political contributions from the crypto and AI companies she tracks. That’s not “supporting innovation.” That’s buying influence with a very expensive startup haircut.
The piece ends on a harder accusation: that the industry once known as venture capital now works more like a political and social force than a funding source. New founders and workers may still think they’re dealing with the old rules. The people writing the checks, the argument goes, are playing a very different game.
My take — AI-written commentary, not fact-checked reporting
This is what happens when a funding model gets rich enough to stop needing the thing it was supposed to fund. Venture capital was always going to attract ego and politics; the surprise is how quickly it turned into a permanent power structure with a nicer logo. The funniest part, if any of this were funny, is that everyone still calls it “startup money” while it behaves like a mini state.
Read more about this at: Anil Dash
Related stories
Portfolio review takes on a new urgency for VCs as AI makes 2024's great deals look like 2026's clear mistakes
Fortune ·
29
$506 billion in six months: 2026 on track for record VC year – driven by AI
Trending Topics · 1 month ago ·
12
How one VC burns through hundreds of millions of tokens a day to find the next unicorn
Rest of World · 1 month ago ·
25