Kevin Hartz’s A* takes a ‘less-is-more’ approach with new $450m fund



While AI peers chase billion-dollar megafunds, the Eventbrite founder’s venture firm has gone the other way.

Kevin Hartz, the Eventbrite co-founder turned long-time seed investor, has closed a $450m fund at A*, his San Francisco venture firm, according to Bloomberg. The vehicle pointedly avoids the multi-billion-dollar AI megafund template that has dominated venture fundraising for the past 18 months.

A*’s previous vehicle, Fund II, closed at $315m in June 2024 and was oversubscribed. Fund I closed at $300m in 2021. The new $450m mark represents a controlled step up, in keeping with what Hartz has previously described as a deliberately constrained portfolio of high-conviction bets rather than a sprawl of small cheques.

The framing on this round is what Bloomberg, citing Hartz, calls a less-is-more strategy: a smaller fund relative to the AI-stage giants, a higher proportion deployed per company, and a discipline against following hot rounds at any price.

The pitch is intended to read as a counter-narrative to firms whose recent raises have ranged from $3bn to $10bn and whose check sizes increasingly look like late-stage growth investments dressed in venture clothes.

A* was founded in 2020 by Hartz with Gautam Gupta, a former Uber finance head and Opendoor operator, and Bennett Siegel, an ex-Coatue partner who backed Peloton and DoorDash.

Its portfolio spans developer tools, AI infrastructure, consumer internet, marketplaces, SaaS, and CRM. Cheque sizes range from $100,000 to about $10m, with a sweet spot near $3m, placing it firmly in the seed and Series A territory.

Hartz has spent the past year publicly betting on younger founders, including a notable share of the previous fund deployed into companies led by teenagers.

That posture, alongside the firm’s preference for fewer companies and longer-held positions, has become A*’s identifiable shape inside a venture industry that has tilted hard toward growth-stage allocation.

The wider context is awkward for the megafund thesis. Andreessen Horowitz raised $3bn earlier this year explicitly to bet against what its partners described as an AI bubble; other tier-one firms have raised even larger pools aimed at single-company concentration.

A* is signalling that the seed end of the market still has room for funds that price discipline matters more than fund size.

How well the discipline holds will be testable. Late-stage AI valuations remain elevated relative to revenue, and a smaller fund cannot lean on follow-on cheques to defend pro-rata against capital-flush rivals.

A* will have to either persuade founders to leave more equity available at the seed stage than the going market clears, or accept dilution that growth-stage peers will not. Hartz has done that calculation before, and his thesis is that the math still works when the entry price is right and the company is held long enough to compound.

Limited partners and competing investors will be watching to see which companies A* concentrates its new fund into.

With Fund II already showing early portfolio standouts and the next AI cycle’s losers still to come, the case for a smaller, more selective vehicle is being made in real time.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Modern displays are amazing when it comes to detail, brightness, color, and all the ingredients that make for an impressive picture—except motion clarity.

CRT screens are still the king of motion clarity, but plasma flat-panel screens hold a respectable second place, and in many ways I still miss my old 720p 51-inch plasma TV and the crisp motion I gave up by switching to a 4K LCD.

Plasma solved motion the “right” way

Plasma displays didn’t just show an image—they flashed it.

While they operate on different principles, CRTs and plasma TVs have a few things in common. First, the phosphors used by CRTs and plasma displays are the same. Second, because these phosphors fade quickly, they need to be continuously refreshed.

In a CRT, the electron beam scanning from the top to the bottom of the screen achieves this, and in a plasma, a high-speed electric pulse does the same. Because of this rapid pulse-and-fade, these screen technologies have crisp perceptual motion, since our brains tend to interpret moving images that don’t pulse as “smearing” across our retinas.

The pulsing nature of plasma technology isn’t the only reason for its better motion reproduction. These screens also have very low latency and very fast pixel response times. Combined, it’s not quite as good as CRT motion handling, but it’s significantly better than LCD and OLED technology, even today.

Modern TVs rely on sample-and-hold—and that’s the problem

Stand and deliver blurry images

Blur Busters UFO Test

Modern LCD and OLED televisions are “sample and hold” technologies. They can hold each frame of video perfectly for the entire duration of that frame without deviating in brightness and then instantly snap to the next frame without any dipping to black in-between.

On paper, this sounds like a good thing, but your eyes don’t stay still when tracking motion. As they follow a moving object, the image being held on screen effectively drags across your retina, creating the perception of blur. Even if the panel itself is perfectly sharp.

You might not even realize how blurry motion is on modern displays if all you’ve ever seen with the naked eye is an LCD or plasma. However, if you see a CRT or plasma in person, the difference is quite striking.

The sample and hold issue means that no matter how much you increase the refresh rate, that type of blur persists. It’s why my 85Hz CRT monitor is clearly less blurry in motion than my 240Hz LCD monitor. It’s especially apparent when you’re playing 2D games that scroll the entire screen, with LCDs or OLEDs smearing the image in a way that gives me a bit of a headache if I’m being honest.

Playing Diablo 2 on a CRT. Credit: Sydney Louw Butler/Shutterstock.com

It creates this weird situation where a modern TV can be incredibly sharp in a freeze frame but somehow look softer than a lower-resolution display that isn’t sample and hold as soon as you press play.

Motion interpolation is a workaround, not a solution

It’s an abomination, that’s what it is

One of the “fixes” that TV makers came up with to reduce unwanted motion blur is a technology known as frame interpolation, or more commonly “motion smoothing.” Here an algorithm creates fake frames that guess at what the middle step of motion would look like if it were captured. This creates a high frame-rate video output, which we see as smoother and more crisp.

While this doesn’t take away sample-and-hold blur, it does improve motion clarity. Unfortunately, it also destroys the intended frame rate that shows and movies were meant to be seen at. It’s also useless for video games, because it introduces an enormous amount of input lag. NVIDIA’s DLSS technology is also frame interpolation, but it works for games because of several mitigations NVIDIA put into the technology. These measures don’t exist on TVs.

While some people think motion smoothing isn’t all bad, TV makers are no longer activating it by default as much anymore, and my advice is to always turn it off because the trade-offs are just not worth it.

Screenshot 2025-07-01 at 9.21.03 AM

7/10

Brand

TCL

Display Size

85-inches

The 2025 model TCL QM6K Google TV delivers a stunningly clear and bright picture with a new Mini-LED panel, improved local dimming zones, Dolby Vision IQ, and a neat new Halo Control system for improved visuals. Get this TV and elevate your living room. 


Black frame insertion tries to recreate plasma—but comes with trade-offs

Who turned out the lights?

The other trick sample-and-hold screens have to mimic what CRTs and plasma TVs do naturally is called BFI, or Black Frame Insertion. As the name suggests, the display inserts a full black frame between every original frame. This provides an instant and dramatic increase in motion clarity. However, it also has a big impact on brightness. As much as half of the light is now gone, so the image is much dimmer. Pushing overall brightness to compensate makes things hotter and more energy-hungry.

Some BFI implementations cause visible flicker, for which I personally have no tolerance at all, but the biggest problem here is that BFI doesn’t have the smooth pulsing roll off of the phosphors used in CRTs and plasma.


The future might circle back—but we’re not there yet

That might be changing, however, because a new generation of LCDs can leverage the power of multi-zone backlight technology to strobe the backlight across the screen in a way that mimics a CRT scanline.

NVIDIA’s G-SYNC Pulsar has received rave reviews from the biggest motion blur haters, and I sincerely hope that a similar technology becomes standard in TVs going ahead, so we can go back to enjoying the crisp motion we used to have without all the compromises.



Source link