exactly. And while the fly-over country (as they say) might indeed be non-coastal and lower-cost the quantities are sufficiently small to indicate that the conc

exactly. And while the fly-over country (as they say) might indeed be non-coastal and lower-cost the quantities are sufficiently small to indicate that the conclusion is incorrect. It's not that being non-coastal or low-cost is an indication of where the money is going (Portland, San Diego, and Boston are clear counter-examples), it's that the ones that are non-coastal and showing growth in VC funding are being driven by a small number of large investments that are outliers. So, when it says the "biggest winners"... they really don't mean the biggest winners. They mean that there are some winners that are interesting non-coastal low-cost living locations, but these are interesting winners, not the biggest ones. And of course the big winners are still coastal and high cost of living cities. There's nothing contraindicating in the research that VC patterns have shifted. EXCEPT in the case of Austin, which interestingly is the opposite of what they claim about the biggest winners. Austin was a big loser in Q1.