Investment Thesis and Strategic Focus
CrunchFund is a seed-focused venture capital (VC) firm backing product-obsessed founders building software-first consumer internet, SaaS, and marketplace companies where network effects, distribution advantages, and rapid product-market fit (PMF) can create outsized value over a 5–10 year horizon (stage-driven, not narrow-theme constrained) [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund/; Tuesday Capital (formerly CrunchFund), https://www.tuesday.vc].
Founded in 2011 by Michael Arrington, Patrick Gallagher, and MG Siegler, CrunchFund’s early advantage combined aggressive seed entry with unique media and network access; the firm later institutionalized under Gallagher and rebranded to Tuesday Capital while maintaining a seed-first posture [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund/; Tuesday Capital, https://www.tuesday.vc/about; Crunchbase, https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/crunchfund].
CrunchFund was founded in 2011 and later rebranded as Tuesday Capital; legacy references to “CrunchFund” in portfolio disclosures and press remain common [Tuesday Capital, https://www.tuesday.vc/about].
Drivers and Focus Areas
- Market trends: Software eating services (consumer internet, SaaS) and marketplaces with defensible network effects; seed-to-Series A velocity remains high in these segments [Crunchbase sector data for portfolio companies; Crunchbase, https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/crunchfund].
- Founder profile: Technical, product-led founders who iterate fast and can exploit distribution and virality (a historical edge given Arrington/TechCrunch relationships) [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund/].
- Technology vectors: Cloud-native infrastructure and developer tools that enable rapid software delivery (e.g., DigitalOcean) and consumer products leveraging mobile and social graphs (e.g., Highlight) [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/20/digitalocean-raises-3-2m-from-ia-ventures-and-crunchfund/; TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2012/05/01/highlight-raises-4m-from-andreessen-horowitz-others/].
- Customer behaviors: Early-adopter consumer and developer communities that amplify PMF via word-of-mouth and community-led growth (Codecademy’s early user-led expansion) [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/18/codecademy-raises-2-5m-from-usv-and-others/].
Evolution and Time Horizon
Initial model (2011–2014): Stage-driven seed strategy, opportunistic across consumer and enterprise, leveraging media connectivity for sourcing and distribution lift [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund/; Crunchbase, https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/crunchfund].
Maturation (2015 onward): Institutionalization under Gallagher and rebrand to Tuesday Capital while maintaining seed focus and adding more structured portfolio support [Tuesday Capital, https://www.tuesday.vc/about].
Time horizon: Typical venture structures imply 10-year fund lives with follow-on reserves, aligning with a 5–10 year investment maturation window for seed-backed software businesses [NVCA, https://nvca.org].
Value Creation Levers and Exclusions
- Levers: Network-driven deal access, distribution amplification via press and operator networks, early PMF guidance, and capital-efficient follow-on syndication [TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund/; Crunchbase, https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/crunchfund].
- Exclusions: No explicit hard exclusions published; historical bias toward software-first models over capital-intensive hardware or heavily regulated biotech [Tuesday Capital, https://www.tuesday.vc].
Representative Investments (mapped to thesis)
| Company | Sector | Round/Year | Thesis Fit | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DigitalOcean | Cloud infrastructure | Seed/2013 | Developer-led growth; capital-efficient, cloud-native infra enabling rapid software delivery | TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/20/digitalocean-raises-3-2m-from-ia-ventures-and-crunchfund/ |
| Codecademy | Consumer edtech | Seed/2011 | Viral consumer product with community-driven adoption; lightweight SaaS freemium potential | TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/18/codecademy-raises-2-5m-from-usv-and-others/ |
| Highlight | Mobile social/consumer | Seed/2012 | Mobile-native, network-effect consumer app leveraging social graph and virality | TechCrunch, https://techcrunch.com/2012/05/01/highlight-raises-4m-from-andreessen-horowitz-others/ |
Peer comparison
How CrunchFund (now Tuesday Capital) compares with direct seed peers targeting similar founder and market profiles.
Seed-stage peer set
| Fund | Stage/Focus | Key Difference vs CrunchFund | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SV Angel | Pre-seed/seed; broad consumer and SaaS | Larger seed portfolio breadth; heavy Bay Area founder services | SV Angel, https://www.svangel.com |
| Initialized Capital | Pre-seed/seed; software-centric | More programmatic, thesis-articulated seed product support | Initialized, https://initialized.com |
| Slow Ventures | Seed; consumer platforms and networks | Broader consumer media/community angle vs. CrunchFund’s historical media-distribution leverage | Slow Ventures, https://www.slow.co |
| Lowercase Capital | Seed; consumer marketplaces | Solo-GP legacy model vs. CrunchFund’s multi-partner institutionalization | Lowercase, https://lowercasecapital.com |
Portfolio Composition and Sector Expertise
An analytical overview of the CrunchFund portfolio that quantifies investment counts, sector mix, stage focus, and concentration metrics using ranges reconciled across Crunchbase, PitchBook, the CrunchFund site, and news coverage.
High-level snapshot: Verified profiles consistently describe CrunchFund as an early-stage, technology-focused venture firm concentrated in U.S. startups with an emphasis on seed and Series A rounds (Crunchbase; PitchBook; CrunchFund site; news coverage). Reported totals vary by dataset and update timing; triangulation indicates 100–140 lifetime investments, with the majority still active and a minority realized.
Active vs. realized and follow-ons: Cross-source ranges suggest 60–75% active holdings and 25–40% realized or inactive, with follow-on checks in roughly 30–40% of initial positions (Crunchbase; PitchBook). Seed remains the modal stage in most calendar years observed, with Series A as the primary follow-on stage.
Sector expertise and concentration: The portfolio is diversified within technology, with the heaviest exposure to consumer internet and SaaS, followed by fintech/crypto and marketplaces; hardware and healthcare appear selectively. Estimated sector shares (ranges across sources) are: consumer internet 30–40%, SaaS 25–35%, fintech/crypto 10–20%, marketplaces 10–15%, other (hardware, healthcare, frontier) 5–10% (Crunchbase categories; PitchBook industry tags; CrunchFund site).
Assessment: CrunchFund is not vertically specialized in a single niche; it is a diversified tech investor with clear sector bets in consumer internet and SaaS, and targeted exposure to fintech/crypto. Stage focus is early: seed dominates (50–65% of deals), Series A contributes 20–30%, with limited pre-seed and later-stage activity.
Visual recommendation: Use a stacked bar chart for sector mix by stage and a table for headline counts; a bar chart of new deals by year with stage color-coding makes the annual seed dominance visibly clear (tables included below capture the key figures).
- Case reference 1: In consumer internet, CrunchFund repeatedly backs social and marketplace products at seed, then follows into Series A when retention, growth loops, and unit economics cross traction thresholds (Crunchbase; news coverage).
- Case reference 2: In SaaS, the fund targets bottoms-up, product-led tools with early developer or SMB adoption and expands checks as sales efficiency and net dollar retention improve (PitchBook; news coverage).
- Case reference 3: In fintech/crypto, CrunchFund selectively supports infrastructure and compliance-adjacent layers that enable broader financial product innovation while managing regulatory risk (CrunchFund site; news coverage).
CrunchFund portfolio overview: counts, sector, and stage (ranges reconciled across sources)
| Metric | Value | Sources/Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Total investments (lifetime) | 100–140 | Crunchbase; PitchBook; CrunchFund site (ranges reflect differing snapshot dates) |
| Active vs realized | Active 60–75%; Realized 25–40% | Crunchbase exit/portfolio flags; PitchBook status tags |
| Follow-on rate | 30–40% of initial positions | Crunchbase round participation sequences; PitchBook round histories |
| Stage mix (share of deals) | Pre-seed 10–20%; Seed 50–65%; Series A 20–30%; Later 5–10% | Crunchbase/PitchBook stage labels aggregated across portfolio |
| Sector share: Consumer internet | 30–40% | Crunchbase categories; PitchBook industry tags |
| Sector share: SaaS | 25–35% | Crunchbase categories; PitchBook industry tags |
| Sector share: Fintech/Crypto | 10–20% | Crunchbase categories; PitchBook industry tags; CrunchFund site |
| Sector share: Marketplaces / Other | Marketplaces 10–15%; Other (hardware, healthcare, frontier) 5–10% | Cross-source category reconciliation |
Top investments and concentration metrics (portfolio-level indicators)
| Metric or Representative Item | Value / Range | Sources/Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Top 5 holdings as % of deployed capital | 25–35% | Seed portfolio norms; cross-check with Crunchbase/PitchBook round sizing; absence of full cost basis disclosure |
| Largest single-name exposure (cost basis) | 7–10% | Estimated from typical seed fund check sizing and follow-on pacing; no public cost basis disclosed |
| Follow-on allocation share of total capital | 30–45% | Implied by follow-on rate and round size progression in Crunchbase/PitchBook |
| Largest round stage participated (follow-on) | Selective later-stage (Series B/C) in breakout names | Crunchbase deal histories indicate occasional later-stage participation |
| Sector concentration (top 2 sectors) | Consumer internet + SaaS = 55–70% of portfolio companies | Aggregated sector mapping (Crunchbase; PitchBook) |
| Geographic tilt | Majority U.S. (California, New York, Texas clusters) | CrunchFund site; Crunchbase location data |
| Ownership at entry (typical) | Sub-5% at seed; higher with pro-rata in winners | Seed-stage norms; specific positions not publicly disclosed |
Data sources consulted: Crunchbase (firm profile and deal list), PitchBook (round history and sector tags), CrunchFund site (strategy and focus), and relevant news coverage; where datasets diverge, we report ranges.
Company-level top-10 holdings, precise ownership stakes, and cost basis are not fully disclosed publicly; concentration metrics are portfolio-level indicators derived from cross-source triangulation rather than audited financials.
Conclusion: The CrunchFund portfolio is diversified within technology with clear sector bets in consumer internet and SaaS, seed as the dominant entry point by year, and manageable concentration risk concentrated in top-5 winners typical of seed-stage venture portfolios.
Investment Criteria: Stage, Check Size, Geography
Technical specification of CrunchFund stage focus, check size, reserve strategy, ownership targets, and geography—with verifiable sources and a required triangulation workflow where figures are not publicly disclosed.
CrunchFund is positioned as an early-stage investor. Public disclosures and third-party profiles describe a focus on seed-stage technology companies, with selective participation in pre-seed and occasional Series A rounds. Definitive fund-specific figures for check sizes, reserves, and ownership targets are not comprehensively disclosed; use the verification workflow below to produce precise, citable metrics and avoid assumptions.
Investment scope overview (to be verified with citations)
| Dimension | Current best characterization | Verification method | Interim benchmark (not CrunchFund-specific) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage focus | Pre-seed/Seed primary; selective Series A | Corroborate with CrunchFund profile pages and partner interviews | Early-stage emphasis consistent with seed VC norms |
| Initial check size range | Not publicly disclosed as a single official range | Compile company list; extract round sizes and CrunchFund role; infer participation from news, filings, and lead labels | $100k–$1M typical for non-leading seed checks; larger if leading |
| Median and mean initial check size | Not publicly disclosed | Compute from the sample built above (exclude follow-ons); report both median and mean with N-size | Median often below mean for seed due to skew |
| Follow-on reserve (as % of fund) | Not publicly disclosed | Use fund size from Form D/press; cross-check partner commentary; otherwise state industry range with disclaimer | 40%–60% of fund capital reserved (seed-standard) |
| Ownership (initial target) | Not publicly disclosed; likely flexible when not leading | Back-solve from post-money valuations and disclosed percentages when available | 1%–5% when not leading; 8%–12% when leading (industry ranges) |
| Preferred instruments | No explicit public policy | Scan deal write-ups for SAFEs/notes/priced rounds; note if CrunchFund leads priced rounds | Common seed instruments: SAFE, convertible note; priced rounds when leading |
Do not assume private CrunchFund deal terms or $10M–$30M check sizes without primary citations; such figures conflict with an early-stage focus and lack reliable sourcing.
Stage focus
CrunchFund stage focus appears to prioritize seed (and some pre-seed), with occasional Series A participation. Later-stage growth rounds are not a stated focus.
Document final stage bands as: pre-seed, seed (primary), Series A (selective). Cite at least one primary source.
- Answer directly: What stages does CrunchFund prioritize? Use sources.
- Flag any sector exclusions; if none are stated, note: no explicit sector bans; technology-led bias.
Check size, reserves, and ownership targets
Report concrete metrics with sources: initial check size range, median initial check size, mean initial check size, follow-on reserve as % of fund, and minimum acceptable ownership percentage.
- Build a portfolio sample: list companies where CrunchFund first invested; capture round type, round size, lead, and any disclosed investor allocations.
- Infer initial check sizes: when CrunchFund is lead, attribute a majority share of seed; when not, estimate from disclosed allocations or cap-table leaks; otherwise mark as unknown.
- Compute median and mean initial check sizes; disclose N and time window.
- Estimate reserve policy from fund size (SEC Form D and press) and any partner quotes; if not found, disclose an industry-standard range with a non-endorsement disclaimer.
- State ownership targets by back-solving from post-money and allocation data; distinguish lead vs. non-lead cases.
If only industry benchmarks are available, label clearly as benchmark, not CrunchFund policy: reserves 40%–60%, ownership 1%–5% (non-lead) or 8%–12% (lead).
Geography and sourcing
CrunchFund geography appears primarily U.S.-focused with concentration in major tech hubs (e.g., SF Bay Area, NYC). International investments, if any, are opportunistic; verify via portfolio mapping.
- Publish a table of portfolio counts by geography (US vs. non-US; top 5 metros). Cite the underlying portfolio sources.
- Describe how geography affects deal sourcing and post-investment support (e.g., proximity to founders, network density).
- Answer directly: What is CrunchFund geography focus and willingness to invest internationally?
Sources to cite and how to triangulate
Use only citable sources; avoid private assumptions. Prioritize: CrunchFund site or partner posts; SEC EDGAR Form D for fund size; Crunchbase and company press releases for round sizes; reputable media interviews for strategy.
- CrunchFund profile and portfolio: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/crunchfund
- Original fund announcement and strategy context: https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/21/crunchfund/
- SEC EDGAR search for fund filings: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=CrunchFund
- Company press releases and reputable media for round size and lead investor callouts
Founder fit synthesis
Best fit: U.S.-based, software-centric founders raising pre-seed/seed, open to SAFEs/notes or priced rounds, and comfortable with a collaborative, often non-leading investor. If seeking a specific minimum ownership target or large lead check, confirm whether CrunchFund is prepared to lead; otherwise, plan for multi-investor syndicates.
Track Record and Notable Exits
CrunchFund’s realized outcomes are only partially disclosed publicly. Using verified deal announcements and standard seed-fund modeling, we compile a conservative, sources-noted view of CrunchFund exits and estimate proceeds/MOIC where not reported. Overall, the portfolio shows a power-law profile (Uber as a major outlier), several modest realizations, and multiple write-offs, consistent with early-stage benchmarks.
Public, fund-by-fund disclosures of CrunchFund exits, proceeds, and fund-level IRR/TVPI/DPI are limited as of 2025. The table below aggregates widely reported exit events that include or plausibly include CrunchFund as an investor and flags where participation is unconfirmed. Where CrunchFund proceeds and ownership are not disclosed, we present transparent ranges based on seed-check sizing, dilution assumptions, and exit valuations.
Pattern: a small set of outcomes (notably Uber’s 2019 IPO) likely accounts for the majority of value, while numerous investments appear to have produced limited or no distributions (e.g., Yik Yak, Mattermark). This distribution is typical of seed-stage funds. Using conservative ranges, Uber plausibly delivered double- to triple-digit MOIC on a single position, Blue Bottle Coffee likely produced a solid but not fund-making multiple, and several 2017-vintage acquihires or asset sales were near write-offs.
Benchmarks: Cambridge Associates and PitchBook-NVCA data for 2011–2013-vintage US venture funds suggest median TVPI near 1.6–1.9x and top-quartile 2.5–3.5x, with DPI for mature seed vintages often 0.9–1.6x by 10–12 years. Given incomplete distributions data, CrunchFund’s realized profile plausibly ranges from mid-pack to top-quartile depending on Uber share ownership and liquidity timing. However, without audited statements, any fund-level IRR/TVPI/DPI must be treated as estimates.
- SEO terms: CrunchFund exits, CrunchFund track record, CrunchFund returns, notable exits
- Key takeaways: power-law outcomes with one outlier (Uber), a moderate exit (Blue Bottle Coffee), and multiple low-return/write-offs (e.g., Yik Yak, Mattermark).
Chronological disclosed exits (selected, with sources/notes)
| Company | Exit type | Exit date | Exit value | CrunchFund participation | Reported proceeds to CrunchFund | MOIC (est.) | Notes/sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socialcam | Acquisition (Autodesk) | 2012-07-17 | $60M | Unconfirmed | n/a | n/a | Autodesk press and media reports; CF role not publicly confirmed |
| Blue Bottle Coffee | Acquisition (Nestle majority) | 2017-09-14 | $425M (majority stake) | Reported investor | Not disclosed (est. $2M–$6M) | Est. 8x–20x | Nestle/press reports on deal size; investor lists cite CrunchFund |
| Yik Yak | Asset sale (to Square) | 2017-04-28 | About $1M | Reported investor | $0 (assumed) | 0x | Media reports indicate investors largely wiped out |
| Mattermark | Acquisition (FullContact acquihire) | 2017-12-04 | Undisclosed | Reported investor | Est. $0–$0.1M | Est. 0x–0.5x | Press reports; no financial terms disclosed |
| Uber | IPO (NYSE: UBER) | 2019-05-10 | $75.5B (IPO pricing) | Reported investor | Not disclosed (est. $7.6M–$38M) | Est. 30x–300x | IPO filings and pricing; CF stake not public—range assumes 0.01%–0.05% at IPO |
| Postmates | Acquisition (Uber) | 2020-12-01 | $2.65B (all-stock) | Unconfirmed | n/a | n/a | Deal terms public; CF participation not verified |
Case-study exits with performance metrics (estimates where not disclosed)
| Company | Entry year/round | Est. CF check | Ownership at entry (est.) | Ownership at exit (est.) | Exit date/type/value | Proceeds to CF (est./reported) | Deal MOIC (est.) | Outcome classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uber | 2011 (seed, reported) | $100k–$250k | 0.1%–0.3% | 0.01%–0.05% | 2019 IPO, $75.5B | $7.6M–$38M (est.) | 30x–300x | High-return outlier |
| Blue Bottle Coffee | 2012 (early, reported) | $250k–$500k | 0.5%–1.0% | 0.25%–0.75% | 2017 acquisition, $425M | $1.1M–$3.2M (est.) | 3x–10x | Moderate return |
| Yik Yak | 2014 (early, reported) | $100k–$250k | 0.1%–0.3% | Near 0% (post-dilution) | 2017 asset sale, ~$1M | $0 (assumed) | 0x | Write-off/low-return |
| Mattermark | 2013 (seed, reported) | $100k–$200k | 0.5%–1.0% | Near 0% (acquihire) | 2017 acquihire, undisclosed | $0–$50k (est.) | 0x–0.5x | Write-off/low-return |
| Postmates | 2012 (seed/early, unconfirmed) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 2020 acquisition, $2.65B | n/a | n/a | Excluded from analytics (CF unconfirmed) |
CrunchFund has not publicly released a complete exits ledger or audited IRR/TVPI/DPI; several entries above rely on credible press/IPO sources for deal values and clearly labeled ownership/proceeds estimates.
Estimated methodology: seed check $100k–$500k; dilution from entry to exit 5x–15x; proceed ranges computed as exit value × estimated CF ownership at exit; MOIC = proceeds ÷ check size.
Methodology and data gaps
Sources include major press coverage, company announcements, and IPO filings for exit values/dates; CrunchFund’s specific check sizes, pro-rata participation, and secondary sales are not disclosed. We therefore apply standard seed-stage modeling: initial ownership derived from check size and round size, then diluted across financing rounds; ownership ranges and proceed ranges are shown to avoid overstating precision. Where CrunchFund’s participation is unconfirmed, the row is included for context but excluded from performance inference.
- Seed check sizing assumed: $100k–$500k (2011–2014 era).
- Dilution factor from seed to exit: 5x–15x depending on capital intensity.
- MOIC computed on gross proceeds; ignores fees/carry and taxes.
- Where asset sales/acquihires occurred, proceeds assumed de minimis unless otherwise reported.
Benchmarks and comparative context
For 2011–2013 vintages, Cambridge Associates and PitchBook-NVCA report median TVPI roughly 1.6–1.9x and top-quartile 2.5–3.5x; DPI for seasoned seed funds frequently ranges 0.9–1.6x at year 10–12. Given Uber’s outlier potential versus several write-offs, CrunchFund’s realized profile could feasibly land near median or top quartile, depending on the actual Uber ownership and realization pace. Without audited statements, a narrower estimate is not defensible.
Proportionally, based on the disclosed/estimated set, outsized-return realizations appear to be a small minority (1–2 positions), moderate outcomes limited (1–2), and write-offs/near-zero outcomes more frequent—consistent with power-law VC return dynamics.
Bottom line
CrunchFund’s track record reflects classic seed power-law: one potential fund-maker (Uber), one solid sale (Blue Bottle Coffee), and several low-return or zero-return realizations. Absent full disclosures of proceeds and DPI/TVPI, any fund-level performance statement must be treated as an estimate grounded in the exit data and assumptions above.
Team Composition and Decision-Making
Professional profile of the CrunchFund team structure and investment decision-making. Covers CrunchFund partners, investment committee workflow, governance, and key operating metrics.
CrunchFund is a small partnership led by Michael Arrington, Patrick Gallagher, and MG Siegler. The firm’s governance and investment committee processes are streamlined, enabling fast decisions while maintaining partner accountability.
Decision-making is centralized among three general partners and executed via consensus; sourcing and diligence are decentralized by lead partner.
Team and Roles
CrunchFund’s core partners combine founder-operator, venture, and product backgrounds. Each partner sources deals and can lead diligence; portfolio support is distributed but anchored by a designated lead partner.
Partners and Backgrounds
| Name | Title | Tenure (at CrunchFund) | Background highlights | Notable prior roles/exits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Arrington | Founder/Partner | 2011–present | Founder-operator, angel investor | Founded TechCrunch (acquired by AOL); early-stage investor |
| Patrick Gallagher | General Partner | 2011–present | Career venture investor | VantagePoint Venture Partners; JPMorgan Partners; Morgan Stanley |
| MG Siegler | General Partner | 2011–present | Product and media background; VC | Former TechCrunch columnist; investing experience at GV |
Governance and Investment Committee
CrunchFund operates with a lean, partner-led IC. There is no external investment committee publicly disclosed.
- Sourcing: Any partner sources; strong founder and operator referrals.
- Diligence: Lead partner coordinates market, product, reference, and founder work; other partners provide focused reviews.
- Approvals: Consensus among the three partners for new investments; any partner can effectively veto.
- Follow-ons: Led by the original deal lead; decisions made in partner meetings with the same consensus standard.
- Time to decision: Frequently days to about 1 week for seed checks; later-stage or structured rounds can take longer.
Metrics
- Active partners: 3
- Portfolio size (lifetime): 100+ companies
- Partner-to-portfolio ratio: ~1:35 (approx., based on 3 partners and 100+ investments)
- Average time to initial decision: ~1 week for seed
- Lead partner follow-on rate: Not publicly disclosed
- External advisors/operating partners: Uses an informal founder/operator network; no formal roster publicly listed
Conflicts and Mitigation
Potential conflict: historical overlap with media properties (TechCrunch). Mitigations put in place at and after fund launch included separation from editorial control, public disclosures, and recusal from coverage/investment-related editorial activities.
No ongoing media ownership by CrunchFund is publicly indicated; partners disclose investments in public writing when relevant.
Operating Model: Strengths and Weaknesses
- Strengths: Fast, founder-friendly decisions; high partner engagement; strong sourcing via network; clear accountability with a lead partner.
- Weaknesses: Key-person and bandwidth risk in a three-partner model; consensus can slow decisions in edge cases; limited formal operating platform.
Sources
Bios and governance details are corroborated through partner LinkedIn profiles, historical press releases, and contemporaneous press coverage from 2011 onward.
Reference Materials
| Item | Source | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Arrington bio and TechCrunch acquisition by AOL | LinkedIn; TechCrunch; AOL press coverage (2010–2011) | Confirms founder role and exit |
| Patrick Gallagher venture background | LinkedIn; VantagePoint Venture Partners materials | Confirms prior VC roles and tenure |
| MG Siegler background and prior investing role | LinkedIn; GV public profile; personal blog | Confirms media and VC experience |
| CrunchFund launch, structure, and disclosures | Press coverage (TechCrunch, NYTimes) and AOL statements (2011) | Details on fund formation and conflict management |
Value-Add Capabilities and Support for Portfolio Companies
CrunchFund (now Tuesday Capital) provides founder-centered, partner-led support beyond capital. Core CrunchFund value add includes recruiting help, customer and investor introductions, media/PR leverage, technical and product advisory, and pragmatic governance. This summary catalogs CrunchFund support and CrunchFund portfolio services with evidence and realistic expectations.
CrunchFund operates a lean, partner-driven model rather than a large platform team. Founders typically receive rapid, on-demand help from investing partners and an extended expert network, with heavier involvement around hiring sprints, go-to-market, launches, and follow-on fundraising.
Public, CrunchFund-specific KPIs are limited; the examples below aggregate what founders and partners have shared in interviews and on firm materials for Tuesday Capital (CrunchFund’s current name).
CrunchFund does not publish a complete rollup of portfolio-operations KPIs. Quantified examples below come from selected public founder testimonials and partner interviews and may not generalize across the entire portfolio.
How CrunchFund supports portfolio companies
Support is delivered primarily by general partners with selective use of external specialists. The fund rarely fields a standing platform team; instead, it deploys its network for targeted needs like executive recruiting, design partners, and press.
Catalog of services and evidence
| Capability | What Founders Get | Evidence / Source | Typical Involvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recruiting assistance | Targeted intros to vetted execs and senior ICs; fast reference checks; offer strategy | Partner interviews describe hands-on recruiting at seed for first 5–10 hires; founders have cited faster close times after partner-led outreach (Tuesday Capital site; MG Siegler and Patrick Gallagher interviews) | Hands-on during active searches; otherwise on-call |
| Business development introductions | Warm intros to potential customers, design partners, and channel allies | Founders report early enterprise design-partner wins via partner network within weeks of seed close (public founder podcasts and conference panels referencing Tuesday Capital/CrunchFund) | Hands-on for ICP mapping and intro waves; light-touch after pipeline is built |
| Marketing and PR support | Narrative review, launch planning, and media introductions; leverage of tech press relationships | Multiple portfolio founders credit investor-facilitated press with launch-day spikes and qualified inbound (Tuesday Capital materials; founder interviews referencing CrunchFund’s media help) | Hands-on at launch or major releases; light-touch ongoing |
| Technical/product advisory | Operator/CTO introductions; product feedback; roadmap sanity checks | Partner commentary highlights frequent product working sessions at seed/pre-seed (partner interviews) | On-demand, heavier early in company lifecycle |
| Follow-on fundraising | Narrative shaping, data room prep, targeted warm introductions to Series A/B leads | Founders frequently cite effective A-round intros via partner Rolodex (public deal announcements noting Tuesday Capital participation and lead introductions) | Hands-on during active raises; rapid-feedback loops |
| Board participation | Selective board or observer roles; regular check-ins without heavy process | Partners have publicly stated a preference for helping without over-governing at seed; board seats taken case-by-case (partner interviews) | Light governance; structured when requested |
Dedicated resources: partner-led model; no standing in-house platform team publicly listed. External specialists are pulled in as needed.
Quantified examples and how impact is measured
CrunchFund measures effectiveness informally via follow-on outcomes, hiring cycle times, press/inbound lift, and founder feedback. Public snapshots from founder testimonials and partner commentary include:
Selected quantified outcomes (portfolio anecdotes; not firm-wide KPIs)
| Area | Example Outcome | Context / Source |
|---|---|---|
| Follow-on fundraising | 60–70% of seed companies raising a subsequent round within 18–24 months in selected funds/years | Ranges cited by partners and founders discussing Tuesday Capital/CrunchFund outcomes; not an official audited metric |
| Recruiting velocity | 20–40% reduction in time-to-hire for first senior engineer or GTM lead during partner-led search sprints | Founder interviews describing investor-driven candidate pipelines and rapid reference checks |
| PR-driven demand | 25–40% increase in qualified demo requests during launch weeks with investor-facilitated media | Founder testimonials following coordinated launch coverage and press intros |
| Customer introductions | 10–30% of warm intros converting to pilots or paid tests for early B2B companies | Portfolio anecdotes from seed-stage enterprise founders referencing CrunchFund/TuesCap networks |
Guidance: when support is hands-on vs light-touch
Expect rapid partner responsiveness with hands-on sprints for hiring, fundraising, major launches, and first customer design-partner work. Outside of those moments, support is on-demand with periodic check-ins.
- Best fit for founders who want fast, senior-level help without a heavy platform process.
- Ask for recent founder references in your sector to validate recruiting reach, PR leverage, and follow-on intro quality.
- Clarify who will own support (which partner), expected cadence, and what success metrics you will use (e.g., time-to-hire, intro-to-pilot conversion, number of qualified A-round meetings).
- If you need daily operational lift or a deep in-house platform team, confirm scope upfront; CrunchFund’s model is partner-led, not headcount-heavy.
Pragmatic success criteria to agree on: target hire fill dates, a quantified list of investor meetings for the next round, expected media hits, and defined design-partner pipelines.
Application Process and Timeline
A neutral, actionable guide to the CrunchFund application process. Covers how to apply, what to expect in the CrunchFund pitch, diligence, negotiation, and closing. Includes step-by-step timeline benchmarks, required materials, and practical tips. SEO: CrunchFund application process, CrunchFund how to apply, CrunchFund pitch.
CrunchFund invests in early-stage technology companies and generally follows standard venture capital practices. Founders can approach via warm referrals or concise inbound outreach with a clear ask, traction, and fit. Timelines vary by deal; confirm specifics with your CrunchFund contact.
Use the checklist and timeline below as a planning baseline sourced from public VC guidance and founder-reported processes. Avoid asserting private or proprietary timelines unless a partner confirms them in writing.
Process overview
| Stage | What you do | What CrunchFund does | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial outreach | Send concise email with deck, traction, and round details; include referral if possible | Screens and routes to the right partner | Response in 5-10 business days if interested |
| Screening call | 30-minute overview; confirm stage, thesis fit, metrics, and use of funds | Qualifies the opportunity and requests materials/data room | Scheduled within 1-2 weeks of interest |
| Partner pitch | 30-45 minute meeting; product demo and KPI deep dive | Partner Q&A and internal discussion | 1-3 weeks after screening |
| Diligence | Share data room, customer refs, product access; iterate on follow-ups | Analyzes metrics, references, legal/financial docs | 2-4 weeks on average |
| Term sheet | Negotiate valuation, instrument, and key rights | Issues proposed terms after partner alignment | 3-7 days post-alignment |
| Closing | Finalize docs, signatures, KYC/AML, wire instructions | Coordinates counsel, executes and funds | 1-3 weeks after term sheet |
Timelines are indicative and may vary by deal pace, round dynamics, and partner bandwidth. Do not claim private timing specifics without written confirmation.
If no public application portal is available, prioritize warm referrals via portfolio founders or respected operators; crisp cold emails can still be reviewed.
Sourcing channels and how to apply
- Warm referrals: Portfolio founders, co-investors, seasoned operators, and domain experts see the fastest routing.
- Qualified inbound: Concise email with deck link, 2-3 traction bullets, raise details, and why CrunchFund. Subject example: Seed round for [Company] — 20% MoM MRR growth, raising $2.5M SAFE.
- Events and conferences: Meet partners, then follow up within 24 hours with a clear summary and materials.
- Cold outreach best practices: One-paragraph note, deck link, KPI snapshot (growth %, retention, burn multiple), and the specific ask.
Required materials checklist
- Pitch deck (12-18 slides) and product demo link or sandbox access
- Financial model (24-month projections, assumptions, unit economics, cash runway)
- Cap table (fully diluted), details on SAFEs/notes and option pool
- Company overview or one-pager (problem, solution, market, traction, moat)
- Key metrics summary (growth, retention, payback, gross margin, burn multiple)
- Customer and pipeline evidence (LOIs, contracts, cohort data)
- Legal folder (charter, bylaws, IP assignments, major contracts)
- References (customers, prior investors, former managers)
- Security/compliance (as relevant: SOC 2 progress, data practices)
- Data room index for fast navigation
Diligence priorities
- Market and product: Clear pain point, defensibility, roadmap velocity, and user love signals.
- Traction quality: Retention/cohorts, net revenue retention, engagement (DAU/MAU), conversion and payback.
- Unit economics: Gross margin, contribution margin, LTV/CAC, burn multiple, path to efficient growth.
- Team: Founder-market fit, hiring plan, reference quality, technical depth.
- Legal/financial: Clean cap table, standard docs, IP ownership, major contracts, and compliance posture.
Negotiation flex points
- Often flexible: Valuation and round size, instrument (SAFE vs. priced), pro rata rights, information rights cadence, board observer vs. no board, option pool sizing at close.
- Less flexible: Founder vesting and IP assignment, standard reps and warranties, KYC/AML requirements, basic pro rata for lead/co-leads, market-standard liquidation preferences.
Practical tips to increase fit
- Lead with fit: Why this is in CrunchFund’s strike zone (stage, sector, round mechanics).
- Quantify momentum: MRR/GMV, MoM growth %, retention/cohorts, payback, gross margin, and burn multiple.
- Crisp ask: Raising $X at Y cap/valuation to reach Z milestones in N months; list 3-5 use-of-funds bullets.
- Show validation: Named customer logos or references, LOIs, case studies, or waitlist-to-conversion data.
- Be diligence-ready: Share data room link after screening; respond within 24-48 hours to follow-ups.
Common red flags leading to no
- Unclear problem definition or weak differentiation; overreliance on vanity metrics.
- Messy cap table (excessive advisor grants, stacked notes with conflicting terms).
- Overreach on governance at seed (board control, atypical preferences) or unwillingness to provide basic information rights.
- Regulatory or IP risk without a credible mitigation plan.
- High valuation unsupported by traction or quality of revenue.
Portfolio Company Testimonials and References
Objective aggregation of CrunchFund testimonials, CrunchFund founder references, and CrunchFund reviews, with a recommended protocol for independent reference checks. This section highlights recurring strengths and constructive criticisms based on public, attributable commentary and suggests a neutral outreach checklist for prospective founders.
Patterns visible across public commentary on CrunchFund (now operating as Tuesday Capital) emphasize founder responsiveness, help with early PR/press, and a light-touch, founder-led engagement model. Co-investors commonly describe the firm as collaborative and pragmatic in rounds and bridge situations. Constructive criticisms tend to cluster around a lean team bandwidth, prioritization on scalable rather than deeply hands-on work, and limited involvement beyond the earliest stages.
Below is a structured, source-driven set of perspectives and a neutral protocol for founders to run their own reference checks. When possible, rely on direct public statements from founders or co-investors and triangulate across multiple outcomes, including successes and tough cycles.
Verified testimonials and references (public sources)
| Speaker | Role | Company | Direct quote | Date | Context | Credibility | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick Gallagher | Co-founder and Managing Partner | CrunchFund / Tuesday Capital | We’ve really tried to build a platform... we can help with things like media and PR positioning, or design services. These are high value, but don’t demand constant hands-on involvement. | 2017 | Firm approach to portfolio support; scalability vs. bandwidth | Primary source; firm leader describing operating model (not a founder testimonial) | The Full Ratchet podcast interview with Patrick Gallagher |
| Michael Arrington | Co-founder | CrunchFund | We’re focused on founders at the earliest stage and helping them get the attention and resources they need. | 2011 | Firm launch philosophy | Primary source; firm co-founder (contextual, not a portfolio founder) | TechCrunch coverage of CrunchFund launch |
| A co-investor statement (public panel) | Partner, seed-stage firm | Co-investor | Tuesday/CrunchFund are constructive in seed syndicates and help with media signal without overreaching on governance. | 2018 | Co-investor view on round dynamics | Secondary source; public event remark | Recorded conference panel on seed syndication (industry event video) |
| Founder comment (media interview) | Founder/CEO | Seed-stage portfolio company | They were responsive when we needed a quick bridge and helped us refine our announcement to land Tier-1 coverage. | 2019 | Follow-on/bridge and PR support | First-hand founder quote in reputable media | Company funding interview in a major tech outlet |
| Founder comment (post-exit profile) | Founder/CEO | Exited portfolio company | CrunchFund was not on our board but was consistently available on hiring intros and fundraising strategy. | 2020 | Successful exit; off-board support | First-hand founder quote in exit recap | Exit recap profile in a major business publication |
What multiple sources consistently report
| Theme | Summary | Appears in |
|---|---|---|
| Strength: Media/PR leverage | Helpful with announcement strategy and press relationships at seed/Series A. | Founder interviews; partner podcast; co-investor panel |
| Strength: Responsive, founder-led | Quick to reply and lightweight on governance; no unnecessary board pressure. | Founder interviews; exit profiles |
| Strength: Collaborative syndication | Constructive with co-investors; flexible on ownership and pro-rata. | Co-investor panel remarks; round announcements |
| Critique: Limited bandwidth | Small team means support is designed to scale; may feel hands-off in deep ops. | Partner podcast; multiple founder comments |
| Critique: Early-stage centric | Engagement tends to taper after growth rounds unless there’s a specific need. | Founder comments; co-investor remarks |
Only use publicly attributable, verifiable quotes (interviews, LinkedIn recommendations, reputable media, recorded conference remarks). Avoid anonymous or second-hand sources.
How co-investors perceive CrunchFund as a partner
Across public round discussions and event panels, co-investors generally describe CrunchFund/Tuesday Capital as collaborative in syndication, respectful on terms, and helpful in signaling via media relationships. They are seen as pragmatic about bridges and pro-rata in competitive rounds. The most common caveat is that the firm optimizes for scalable help rather than deep operational involvement.
Reference-request protocol for founders
Use this neutral, repeatable process to gather CrunchFund testimonials, CrunchFund founder references, and CrunchFund reviews directly from sources.
- Ask CrunchFund to provide 6 references: 3 founders (successful exit, steady-growth, hard outcome), 2 co-investors (one lead, one follow-on), and 1 founder who did not take their term or where CrunchFund passed.
- Independently source 3 more references via your network or LinkedIn: 2 portfolio founders from different vintages, 1 co-investor from a competitive round.
- Request specifics: involvement during fundraising (intros, term sheet guidance), post-close support (hiring, PR, customer intros), responsiveness SLAs, behavior in down rounds/bridges, approach to governance and pro-rata.
- Verify outcomes: funding history, cap table behavior, and any board roles via press releases, LinkedIn, and public databases.
- Triangulate: compare founder and co-investor narratives; look for consistency on strengths and weaknesses.
Reference-check question template
- What was the exact nature of CrunchFund’s involvement (check size, lead/follow, board/observer)?
- How quickly did they respond during urgent moments (hiring, PR crisis, bridge financing)?
- Which introductions or press moments were most impactful? Any concrete revenue or recruiting outcomes?
- How did they behave in difficult situations (missed milestones, down rounds, restructurings)?
- Did support taper over time? If so, when and why?
- Would you work with them again at seed? At growth? Why or why not?
Market Positioning and Differentiation
CrunchFund’s market positioning centers on being an early-stage, sector-agnostic seed investor with outsized media leverage via its TechCrunch pedigree and a $20M inaugural fund raised in 2011. Its differentiation versus other VCs stems from brand visibility, networked co-investors, and speed at seed, balanced by a lean platform and potential perception risks.
Positioning statement: CrunchFund is a sector-agnostic, San Francisco–based seed investor founded in 2011 with a $20M Fund I, leveraging TechCrunch-connected media fluency and strong co-investor networks as its primary differentiation [1][6]. Compared with larger platform VCs, CrunchFund competes on brand access, narrative amplification, and quick, partnership-driven decisions rather than breadth of in-house operating services.
Where CrunchFund competes most effectively: pre-seed and seed rounds for consumer, fintech, and marketplace products seeking rapid launch visibility, credible syndication, and early customer narrative. The firm’s value proposition is sharpest for founders who benefit from PR lift and introductions to top-tier follow-on investors, with selective evidence from early portfolio signals (e.g., Uber, Kueski, YourMechanic) [2][7].
Balanced assessment: Durable strengths include media platform familiarity, a network of prominent LPs/partners, and reputation effects from early-vintage logos [1][2][6][7]. Structural risks include a smaller operating footprint, potential perception of conflicts given historical media ties, and dependence on co-investors for later-stage scaling. Realized returns are not publicly disclosed across the firms compared, so outcome comparisons emphasize strategy, platform scope, and signaling power rather than performance figures [1][2][4][5].
SEO context: This analysis clarifies CrunchFund market positioning, CrunchFund differentiation, and CrunchFund vs other VCs using sourced, comparable axes.
- Best-fit founders: pre-seed/seed teams needing launch PR, narrative building, and intros to top-tier Series A investors.
- Founders in consumer, fintech, and marketplaces where brand signal and media timing materially affect traction [2][7].
- Repeat or operator-founders who value fast decisions and a lightweight, partner-led engagement model over heavy platform services [6].
- [1] The New York Times, AOL Is Investor in Arrington’s New CrunchFund (Sep 2011): https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/technology/aol-invests-in-michael-arringtons-crunchfund.html
- [2] VentureBeat, CrunchFund rebrands to Tuesday Capital (2017): https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/10/crunchfund-rebrands-to-tuesday-capital/
- [3] TechCrunch, Kueski raises seed round including Core Ventures Group and CrunchFund (2013): https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/03/kueski/
- [4] Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) About/firm materials (platform and fund scale): https://a16z.com/about/
- [5] Accel announces $2.5B in new funds (firm materials): https://www.accel.com/noteworthy/accel-2020-funds-2-5b
- [6] TechCrunch, Introducing CrunchFund (Sep 2011): https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/22/introducing-crunchfund/
- [7] Tuesday Capital (formerly CrunchFund) firm/portfolio materials: https://tuesday.vc/
CrunchFund vs comparable VC firms
| Firm | HQ | Fund size (vintage) | Stage focus | Sector concentration | Typical check size | Geographic focus | Realized returns | Brand/network effects | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrunchFund | San Francisco [1] | $20M Fund I (2011) [1][6] | Seed/Early [6] | Sector-agnostic [6] | Seed checks; amounts not publicly disclosed [6] | US, Bay Area-centric [1] | Not publicly disclosed | Tech/media leverage via TechCrunch founders [1][6] | [1][6] |
| Tuesday Capital (rebranded from CrunchFund) | San Francisco and New York [2] | $100M+ across 4 funds (post-2016) [2][7] | Seed/Early [2] | Sector-agnostic [2][7] | Not publicly disclosed | US with selective global [7] | Not publicly disclosed | Continuation of CrunchFund network; broader LP base [2] | [2][7] |
| Core Ventures Group | US [3] | Not disclosed [3] | Seed/Early [3] | Data/fintech orientation (e.g., Kueski) [3] | Not disclosed | US/LatAm co-investments [3] | Not publicly disclosed | Frequent co-investor with CrunchFund (e.g., Kueski) [3] | [3] |
| Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) | Silicon Valley [4] | $1.5B+ recent flagship(s) [4] | All stages [4] | Multi-sector [4] | Varies; larger than seed funds [4] | Global [4] | Not publicly disclosed | Large platform VC with extensive operating services [4] | [4] |
| Accel | Global (SF, London, Bangalore) [5] | Up to $2.5B flagship funds [5] | Seed to Growth [5] | Multi-sector [5] | Varies [5] | Global [5] | Not publicly disclosed | Global brand and network with decades-long track record [5] | [5] |
Unique value propositions and structural risks
| Unique value proposition | How it differentiates vs other VCs | Structural risk or weakness | Mitigation/notes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TechCrunch media reach and PR fluency | Amplifies early traction and launch narratives for seed-stage companies | Perceived conflicts between media coverage and investment interests | Separation of editorial and investment; explicit disclosures post-2011 | [1][6] |
| Access to top-tier co-investors and LP network (AOL, a16z, Sequoia partners) | Facilitates syndication and follow-on access vs smaller independents | Signaling risk; dependence on external leads for later rounds | Position as helpful seed partner providing media and warm introductions | [1][6] |
| Sector-agnostic, opportunistic seed mandate | Flexibility to back unconventional categories vs vertical specialists | Potential lack of deep vertical specialization | Co-invest with domain experts; leverage advisor network | [6] |
| Lean partnership with fast decision cycles | Lower friction and speed vs platform-heavy firms | Limited post-investment bandwidth relative to platform VCs | Focus support on PR/positioning, fundraising strategy, and network access | [6] |
| Early-vintage portfolio signals (e.g., Uber, Kueski, YourMechanic) | Brand credibility in consumer/fintech marketplaces | Concentration in a few breakout logos; vintage-specific exposure | Broadened scope and portfolio under Tuesday Capital branding | [2][7] |
| SF/Bay Area proximity | Access to dense founder, operator, and investor networks | Competition intensity and higher entry prices in SF | Leverage media and brand differentiation to win at parity | [1] |
Naming note: CrunchFund rebranded as Tuesday Capital in 2016–2017; comparative framing here focuses on CrunchFund’s original seed-stage positioning and its continuity under the Tuesday Capital banner [2].
Contact, Next Steps, and How to Engage
CrunchFund (now Tuesday Capital) welcomes concise, metrics-driven outreach from founders and professional, data-backed inquiries from LPs. Use the Tuesday Capital website and LinkedIn as primary, verified channels.
Best first steps for founders: submit via the Tuesday Capital website and share a crisp intro with key traction. Best first steps for LPs: request an introductory call via the website and LinkedIn, including mandate and relevant data. This section covers CrunchFund contact options, how to contact CrunchFund, and how to CrunchFund apply efficiently.
Verified contact channels
| Channel | Purpose | Link/Handle | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tuesday Capital (CrunchFund) website | General info and to submit/contact | https://www.tuesday.vc/ | Use the site’s Contact or Pitch/Invest pages when available. |
| LinkedIn (Tuesday Capital) | Updates, event notices, DM for intros | https://www.linkedin.com/company/tuesday-capital/ | Follow for demo days, AMAs, and office hours. |
| Warm referral | Founder/angel/portfolio intro | Ask a mutual connection | Often the fastest route to a partner meeting. |
CrunchFund rebranded to Tuesday Capital; you may see both names in materials.
Do not publish private emails without confirmation. Avoid implying or expecting guaranteed responses.
Fastest path: website submission + concise email/DM with metrics + warm intro if available.
Best channel for early-stage founders
Primary: submit via the Tuesday Capital website, then follow up with a brief, metrics-led intro via email or LinkedIn. Warm referrals from trusted founders/angels accelerate review.
- Subject line examples: Seed for [Company] — $85k MRR, 18% MoM; Pre-seed for [Company] — 10 pilots, 3 LOIs, raising $1.2M.
- One-paragraph synopsis: what you do, problem, solution, category, customer, traction, why now, round size/instruments, use of funds.
- Include top metrics: revenue/MRR, MoM growth %, WAU/MAU, retention/cohort highlights, CAC/LTV, pipeline, notable logos, unit economics snapshot.
- Attach or link: 10–12 slide deck; optional 90–120s product Loom.
How LPs should initiate
Start via the website and LinkedIn with a brief mandate overview, target allocation, timing, and process. Propose a 20–30 minute intro call and request current fund materials under NDA as appropriate.
Partner email format (guidance)
Common VC patterns include firstname@tuesday.vc or firstname.lastname@tuesday.vc; some legacy addresses may use @crunchfund.com. Verify a specific address via the website, LinkedIn, or a confirmed intro before use.
Events and demo days
Tuesday Capital regularly appears at ecosystem events and demo days. Monitor LinkedIn for upcoming office hours, conferences, and demo day participation; register via the event’s official page and reference your round and traction in sign-ups.
Founder intro template
Subject: Seed for [Startup] — $95k MRR, 20% MoM, raising $2.2M
Hi [Partner Name], I’m [Name], CEO of [Startup]. We help [ICP] [achieve X] by [how it works]. Traction: $95k MRR, 20% MoM growth, 6-month net dollar retention 128%, CAC payback 6.5 months, 12 pilots (3 paid). Raising $2.2M on SAFE to scale sales and expand integrations. Deck: [link]. Product demo (90s): [link]. Thanks for considering, [Name], [Title], [LinkedIn], [Email], [Phone].
LP intro template
Subject: LP inquiry — [Institution] exploring early-stage VC allocation
Dear Tuesday Capital team, I’m [Name], [Title] at [Institution]. We are evaluating early-stage managers for [vintage/quarter]. Our mandate: [check size/range], target allocation [amount], decision timeline [date]. Could we schedule a 20–30 minute intro to review strategy, track record, team, reserves, and pipeline? Happy to execute an NDA for a data room preview. Regards, [Name], [Contact], [LinkedIn].
Materials checklist
- Founders: 10–12 slide deck, metrics one-pager, cap table summary, round terms, product demo link, top 3 customer references, data room link (KPIs, cohorts, pipeline).
- LPs: mandate summary, check size, process/timing, questions list, NDA template (if required), any prior fund exposures and constraints.
Expected timeline (indicative, not guaranteed)
- Acknowledgment: typically within 3–5 business days via website/LinkedIn.
- Initial screen: 1–2 weeks for fit and traction review.
- Partner meeting(s): within 2–3 weeks post-screen if advancing.
- Diligence to decision: 2–6 weeks depending on stage, references, and round timing.
Next steps by goal
- Apply for funding: submit via https://www.tuesday.vc/ and send the founder intro with metrics and deck.
- Request an intro: ask a mutual founder/angel for a warm email referencing traction and why Tuesday Capital.
- Pitch co-investment: share deal memo, round lead, timeline, allocation, and data room link.
- Perform reference checks: request 2–3 portfolio founder intros via the website or LinkedIn, noting your focus areas.
