It’s Time To Ban The Warm Intro

In partnership with

Long Angle: A Vetted Community for High-Net-Worth Entrepreneurs and Executives

Long Angle is a private, vetted community for high-net-worth entrepreneurs, executives, and professionals across multiple industries.

Our members are primarily self-made, 30–55-year-olds with $5M-$100M in net worth. Engage in confidential discussions, peer advisory groups, and live meetups.

Get access to curated alternative investments like private equity and private credit. With $250M+ invested, members leverage collective expertise and scale to capture unique opportunities.

No membership fees.

Join Long Angle Today

When I first started fundraising for Chezie, I made a list of 300 funds that seemed like a good fit based on location, stage, and sector. Many had open applications on their websites or publicly available email addresses, which seemed promising. All I had to do was reach out, and I’d get meetings!

Wrong.

After sending about a hundred cold applications, emails, tweets, and DMs, I got zero responses. Not one.

Then I had a conversation with John Hu, founder of Stan, who had just raised $5M. His advice was simple: "definitely overindex to warm [intros]."

I took his advice and indexed 100% on warm introductions. Suddenly, I started getting VC meetings. While this worked out for me, it highlighted a massive problem in venture capital that nobody wants to talk about.

The Problem with Warm Intros

Venture capital has been run on warm intros for decades, and over that time, more barriers have been built up to actually access VC funding.

Here are the three biggest problems I see with warm introductions.

It's Discriminatory

You can only get a warm introduction if you know someone who can make that introduction for you. I was lucky—I'd been in tech for a while and had built a decent network through LinkedIn. But what about founders just breaking into tech, living in more remote locations, or being earlier in their careers?

Most of the time, those with these valuable connections are white founders, mainly white male founders. Even when they don't have direct connections, they at least look like and share experiences with most VCs (who are also predominantly white men). So even their cold emails are more likely to be well-received.

This leaves underrepresented founders – Black, female, Latino, and others – searching through their limited networks, hoping someone knows a handful of VCs well enough to make an introduction that will actually lead to a meeting.

Great Ideas Are Getting Blocked

When access to monetary capital requires social capital, we have a problem.

One of the most common startup adages is to solve your own problems. But what happens when multiple demographic groups have identified problems and built solutions to solve them but can’t access the funding they need to scale those solutions?

The problems go unsolved.

The founders closest to unique, unsolved problems often come from communities without extensive VC networks. By requiring warm intros, we’re essentially saying solving these problems matters less than having the right connections.

It's Hurting VCs Too

The irony of the warm introduction is that they don’t even serve VCs well. When everyone relies on the same networks for deals, they chase the same types of companies and founders. This is why we see endless copycat startups in overcrowded spaces while real, unique problems go unsolved.

Pattern matching through warm intros means VCs are often seeing the same profile of founder over and over:

• Similar educational backgrounds

• Similar professional experiences

• Similar networks

• Similar ideas

This pattern matching means problems faced by underrepresented communities often go unfunded while we get our fifteenth dating app, customer support platform, or spreadsheet tool.

Alternatives To Warm Intros

I've looked hard for alternatives to warm intros, and honestly, it doesn’t look good, fam.

There aren't many great ones out there. Some funds claim to have open applications on their websites or say they're open to cold emails. However, based on personal experience and understanding of how many founders are seeking capital, that will never work. VCs get flooded with cold emails, many of which look like spam, making it nearly impossible for them to review everything thoroughly.

If we genuinely want to level the playing field, we need something more structured. Imagine if fundraising worked more like college admissions. While obviously imperfect, at least everyone fills out the same application and takes the same tests.

For VC, that could look like a universal application system that every startup completes upon incorporation, making them eligible for VC funding. VCs could then filter and evaluate companies based on consistent criteria rather than who knows whom.

It's a lofty and probably impossible goal, but isn’t that what venture is all about? Funding the impossible?

The (Weak) Case For Warm Intros

VCs love to say that "scrappy founders will find a way to get warm intros." I hate this argument.

You can't "scrappy" your way into knowing more people – at least not quickly. Sure, you can attend conferences or networking events, but that doesn't establish the kind of meaningful relationships that lead to VC intros.

What’s funny (read: tragic) is many founders who can't get warm intros are the scrappiest ones out there. They've built companies without:

• Brand name schools

• Big tech experience

• Family money

• Extensive networks

They're scrappy enough to build something with limited resources, but they're locked out because they lack the social capital for a warm introduction. I hate it here.

Why It Won't Change

Here's the uncomfortable truth: warm intros aren't going anywhere because VCs can't afford to pass on potential unicorns, and walking away from them could potentially mean missing the next big thing.

I've seen this firsthand. Even VCs who claim to have open applications will fast-track warm intros from notable sources. They'll choose potential returns over fairness every time – it's just business.

Some funds do have open applications and claim to read cold emails. But with a standardized system (like college applications, for example), we can handle a process that systematically excludes countless promising founders and ideas.

The real losers aren't just the founders who can't get meetings—it's the entire ecosystem that is missing out on innovative solutions to real problems.

If you have thoughts about warm intros or want to share your experience, reply to this email! Would love to hear from you 🤝

Catch you next week,

Toby