I think FW's mathematical approach probably is flawed, but I think underlying it there might be something of interest. I read it as: the creation of wealth by n

I think FW's mathematical approach probably is flawed, but I think underlying it there might be something of interest. I read it as: the creation of wealth by new ventures requires resources, which can be split into two types: funds, and everything else. The two resources need to be present at a certain (range of) ratio(s). There is a finite supply of the 'everything else' (e.g. people who thrive in a start-up environment, consumer willingness to adopt new things, etc), therefore the demand for funds is finite, i.e. VC is not a (infinitely) scalable asset class. That's a theoretical argument, and you might well say, "fine in theory, but in practice we're nowhere near hitting the limit of supply of everything else". Implicitly he seems to be suggesting that we are (via his assertion that total exit values is fixed) - that seem like the wrong way to address the 'limit of supply question' (because it looks at outputs, not inputs), but I think the limit question is still a valid one to ask. Personally, I really don't know whether we're anywhere near the 'limit of supply of everything else', but I hope not. Would love to hear what others think on this question..