I’ve seen a lot of cycles in Silicon Valley. I’ve built and sold two companies, and now I spend my time investing in the next generation of founders—people building giants like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Scale AI. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that the way we fund innovation is often completely out of sync with the speed of innovation itself. The old model of raising a venture fund every two to four years is slow, clunky, and frankly, a massive distraction.
By 2026, if you’re an investor still stuck in that old model, you’re going to be left behind. The future of early-stage venture capital is being defined by a much more agile, continuous, and transparent structure: the rolling fund. I’ve watched this model evolve, and I’m convinced it’s not just another trend. It’s a fundamental shift in how capital gets to the best founders.
The Grind of Traditional Fundraising
Let me tell you a story. When we were raising for my first company, MovieLaLa, it felt like a full-time job on top of my actual full-time job of building a product. We spent months on the road, pitching hundreds of investors, most of whom weren’t the right fit. The feedback loop was incredibly slow. You’d have a great meeting, hear nothing for weeks, and then get a vague "no." All that time spent chasing checks was time not spent talking to users or writing code.
It’s the same on the investor side. You spend a year or more raising a fund, and then the clock starts ticking. You have a fixed pool of capital that you must deploy within a specific timeframe. This creates weird incentives. You might pass on a great company in year one because you’re pacing yourself, or you might rush into a mediocre deal in year three because you’re feeling pressure to deploy capital. It’s a system that forces you to think in discrete, artificial cycles, while innovation happens continuously.
This is the core problem: traditional fund structures are rigid, but opportunity is fluid.
So, What Exactly is a Rolling Fund?
Let’s break it down. A rolling fund, a structure really pioneered and popularized by AngelList, is a type of investment vehicle that allows a fund manager to raise money and invest it at the same time, on a continuous basis. Instead of raising a single, large fund, I can accept new capital from Limited Partners (LPs) every quarter.
Think of it like a subscription model for a venture fund. My LPs commit to investing a certain amount each quarter for a set period, say four quarters. This creates a predictable, recurring stream of capital that I can deploy as I find great companies. I’m not sitting on a huge pile of cash that I need to rush to invest. I’m also not turning away great investors just because I happened to close my fund last month.
Here’s how it typically works:
- Quarterly Subscriptions: LPs subscribe to the fund and their capital is called at the start of each quarter.
- Continuous Investment: As the manager, I can write checks to startups at any time. My ability to invest isn’t tied to a "first close" or a "final close."
- Public Marketing: Unlike traditional funds, which are bound by strict rules against solicitation, rolling funds can be marketed publicly. This opens up access to a much wider and more diverse group of potential LPs.
This isn’t just a minor tweak. It’s a complete rethinking of the fund model, designed for a world where deals can come together in days, not months.
Why This Model is the Future
I’ve made over 200 angel investments, and I’ve seen firsthand how speed and access can make or break a deal. The best founders have options. They don’t have time to wait for your annual meeting or for your fund to close. Rolling funds give emerging managers the ability to compete with established firms on speed and agility.
Here are the three main reasons why I believe this model will be dominant by 2026:
1. It Democratizes Access for LPs
For decades, the best venture funds were an exclusive club. You had to have the right connections just to get a meeting, and minimum check sizes were often in the millions. This locked out a huge pool of potential capital from accredited investors who were doctors, lawyers, or successful tech employees.
Rolling funds change that. Because managers can publicly market their funds, they can attract a broader base of LPs. Minimum subscriptions can be as low as $10,000 a quarter. This is huge. It means someone who has deep expertise in a specific industry, say AI or robotics, can now invest alongside me in a portfolio of startups in that space. It brings more smart money to the table, which is a massive benefit for founders.
2. It Empowers a New Generation of Fund Managers
Starting a traditional venture fund is incredibly hard. You need a massive network and a track record that convinces institutions to write multi-million dollar checks. This has created a system where most fund managers look the same and come from the same handful of schools and firms.
Rolling funds lower the barrier to entry. A talented operator with a great eye for product and a strong following on Twitter can now spin up a fund and start investing. They don’t need to raise a $20 million fund from day one. They can start with a few hundred thousand dollars in quarterly subscriptions and build their track record over time. This will bring a wave of new, diverse talent into the venture ecosystem—managers who have real, hands-on experience building companies.
3. It Aligns Incentives with Founders
The continuous nature of a rolling fund just makes more sense. As a manager, I’m always in the market, both fundraising and investing. This means I’m always thinking about my reputation and my performance. I can’t hide behind a ten-year fund cycle. My LPs are evaluating me every quarter.
This creates a much healthier dynamic. It forces me to be transparent, to communicate my strategy clearly, and to consistently show results. For founders, it means they are partnering with investors who are actively engaged and have fresh capital to support them in future rounds. It also means that when I commit to a deal, I can move fast. I don’t have to worry about complex capital calls or internal fund politics. If I see a great team, I can give them a "yes" and wire the money in days.
The Road Ahead: SPVs and Secondary Markets
Rolling funds are just one piece of a larger puzzle. The entire venture landscape is becoming more fluid. We’re seeing the rise of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which allow investors to pool capital for a single deal. This is perfect for those one-off opportunities where you want to write a larger check than your fund strategy allows.
We’re also seeing the emergence of more robust secondary markets. In the past, if you invested in a startup, your money was locked up for a decade or more. Now, there are platforms that allow early investors and employees to sell a portion of their equity sooner. This provides much-needed liquidity and makes startup investing a more attractive asset class for a wider range of people.
By 2026, I expect these trends to converge. A successful investor will operate a rolling fund for their core strategy, use SPVs for opportunistic deals, and leverage secondary markets to provide liquidity for their LPs. It’s a more complex world, but it’s also a much more efficient and dynamic one.
I didn’t get into this business to follow old rules. I got into it to back people who are building the future. The tools we use to fund them should be just as innovative as the products they’re creating. The era of the slow, rigid venture fund is coming to an end. The future belongs to the agile. The future belongs to rolling funds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the most common pushback you get on this?
People often push back by citing exceptions or edge cases. And they're usually right that exceptions exist. But building a strategy around exceptions rather than patterns is a losing game for most founders.
How has this view evolved over time?
My thinking on most topics has changed significantly over the years. Early in my career, I held many conventional views that experience proved wrong. I try to update my beliefs when the evidence changes.
How can I apply this thinking to my own situation?
Start by identifying the core principle behind the opinion, not the specific example. Then ask yourself: does this principle apply to my context? If yes, test it in a small, low-risk way before going all in.