50 years in, and we are still discussing how Venture Capital makes the most sense.
An amazing aspect of working in the venture capital space is the continuous debate how this business makes the most sense as in can be most lucrative for a venture firm and its investors (Limited Partners) over a longer period of time (the longer period of time is important here to somewhat lessen the effect a single massive hit can have on performance). I constantly find myself in really interesting discussions about this topic and this is probably one of the most blogged about topics by VCs.
The discussions interestingly cover almost all aspects of the setup of venture firms, from sizes of funds (varying from 50m to >1bn), the investment approach (focussed large investments vs. lots of smaller ones) to the team setup (larger operating team supporting companies vs. small investment team with basically no support staff) and so on. Even which KPIs are most or actually relevant when evaluating VC funds which have not yet been fully returned is a continuous discussion.
There is good arguments for each and every conceptual approach with very few selected funds usually serving as examples. It just amazes me, that with 50 years in the making our industry keeps on discussing its basic concepts and we probably will keep on discussing :)