It is, sure. In theory, at least -- existing VC has fairly well demonstrated that they have no particular skill at directing investment to companies that will

It is, sure. In theory, at least -- existing VC has fairly well demonstrated that they have no particular skill at directing investment to companies that will actually turn a profit (largely encouraged by scale problems). The real challenge is how (1) to design a VC investor model that doesn't take venture-bait, and then (2) how to convince those with capital that you are actually both different and better. Of course, there already is something that "disrupts" VC to an extent -- Angel Investors and Angel Funds. These have proven to be better at avoiding VC-bait, but the way they achieve this (the Angels invest their own capital) inherently limits their scale. I'm suspicious of attempts to blend the two, attempting to create a crowdsource-based angel network, for example, because I think you lose the expertise available in smaller networks of more-highly-engaged investors. Then again, for some types of projects "microfinance" worked 10+ years ago (when that was the cool new thing). It was mostly engaged in for semi-altruistic reasons rather than strictly profit-seeking ones, but maybe something slightly bigger ("centifinance"? "decifinance?") could work. But we definitely could use more types of Angel networks -- especially those not looking for the next 1000x opportunity, but instead the next 5x or 10x or 20x opportunities, as these are the types of (workable) businesses hardest to get off the ground today.