Seed Rounds at $100M post-money

> The exit values in VC have increased significantly over the last decade leading to escalating entry values. That makes sense. But the two things that have not changed materially over the last decade are the dilution from seed to exit and the power-law distribution of outcomes in an early stage portfolio.

And a little before that:

> If you believe your top-performing investment, out of 100 investments, will end up being worth $100 billion, then the numbers change a lot. You end up with a 13x fund instead of a 1.3x fund, before fees and carry.

So, VCs are still just doing the math like they always have. The rate of $1B companies being created today is 10x (? I don't know) higher than it was a decade ago, so the rate of $100B is probably going to be higher. A single $100B company in your portfolio of 100 companies makes it all work (really work). Still a lot has to go right from seed to $100B, but that's no different. There might be more money available in VC today. Feels like pop culture and society in general is much more interested in start-ups, VCs, etc. Maybe that's my bubble, though.

Are people really raising a "seed" at $100M with only $1M investment? I would assume these sorts of companies were in the space industry or something similar where they don't get anywhere without hundreds of millions and a seed would look more like $25M

What sorts of companies are raising at these sorts of valuations, and what stage are they really at? Fred suggests that a seed means they don't yet have PMF, but perhaps that isn't correct in the cases he's seeing.