Web3 fundraising in 2026 is two different sales to two different buyers: venture funds that buy before there is a market and hold for years, and liquid funds that buy only what they can trade. The venture side is concentrating. Galaxy Research counted about $5.7 billion across 384 crypto venture deals in the second quarter of 2026, as crypto.news reported, with roughly 78% of the capital going to later-stage companies. Plan for both buyers, and expect each to read your token model differently.
Who decides this
The CEO owns the investor relationships; the CFO owns the terms, the instrument and the unlock calendar the investors will hold. The CEO is accountable for which funds are in the round and what each is expected to contribute. The CFO is accountable for making sure the promises made to a venture fund before launch do not become the reason a liquid fund declines to buy after it.
Which buyer fits where you are?
If the token is not trading yet, your buyer is a venture fund; once it trades with real depth, liquid funds become possible buyers. The two differ on almost every dimension that matters to a founder.
Cambridge Associates’ November 2025 review (opens in new tab) sets out the contrast clearly. Crypto venture funds are usually illiquid, with lock-ups of roughly three to ten years, and diligence on team, technology and business model. Liquid token investing trades every day of the year and focuses on token fundamentals, network activity, staking and sentiment. Pantera’s own fund pages (opens in new tab) show the same split inside one manager: its venture funds list liquidity only at the end of the fund, while its liquid token fund lists quarterly liquidity.
| Dimension | Venture fund | Liquid token fund |
|---|---|---|
| What it buys | Equity, token warrants or early token rights | Tokens already trading |
| When it buys | Before TGE, often before product | After listing, when depth allows entry and exit |
| Holding horizon | Years; capital returned at fund end | Months to years; investors redeem periodically |
| Diligence focus | Team, technology, business model, market fit | Usage, cash flow, value accrual, liquidity |
| What it needs from you | Clean token rights, vesting, governance | A tradable float, a visible unlock calendar, reporting |
| How it exits | Sells unlocked tokens or the company | Sells in the market at any time |
Our view: decide which of the two you are raising from this year, and build the materials for that buyer. A single deck aimed at both usually satisfies neither.
What does a venture fund need to see in 2026?
A venture fund in 2026 needs evidence of revenue or usage, clean paperwork that separates equity from token rights, and a plan that does not depend on a high launch price. The capital is there, but it is going to fewer and larger companies.
Galaxy Research’s first-quarter report (opens in new tab) counted about $4 billion across 355 deals, down roughly half on the prior quarter. It linked the drop to fewer very large rounds rather than a general pullback, and said later-stage capital reflected larger, revenue-generating companies. The median deal passed $4.5 million, a record. In the second quarter, Galaxy put the median near $4.9 million, as reported by crypto.news (opens in new tab).
The funds themselves are harder to raise. Galaxy counted eight new crypto venture funds raising about $1.1 billion in the first quarter, the fewest new funds in a quarter since the third quarter of 2020. It named AI, spot crypto exchange-traded products and digital asset treasury companies as competitors for the same allocator money. Expect partners to be selective and slow, because their own investors are.
The paper has standardised. InnMind’s second-quarter early-stage report (opens in new tab) describes a post-money SAFE plus a separate token warrant as the standard structure. It found no bare SAFTs among the pre-seed deals in its sample. It also put the median seed round at $5.2 million and counted about 651 active crypto check-writers in the quarter.
What does a liquid fund need to see?
A liquid fund needs a token it can buy and sell in size, and a reason to own it that it could defend to its own investors like a listed equity. It does not care how good your seed deck was.
The Block reported in April 2025 (opens in new tab) that, according to multiple investors it spoke to, some liquid funds had lost up to 70% that year. After those losses, investors described moving toward fundamentals such as cash flow, usage and value accrual. One argued that a portfolio of six to ten tokens beats one of twenty or more. That means fewer slots, and each one is harder to win.
What we would prepare for a liquid fund: a public dashboard of usage and revenue, a full unlock calendar showing who can sell and when, the market-making arrangement in outline, and a treasury policy. Our inference from the funds’ stated preferences: a project that cannot show those four things will be priced as a momentum trade, not a holding.
Should you raise from both, and in what order?
Raise venture money before launch and treat liquid funds as a post-launch audience that your venture terms must not scare off. The order is fixed by liquidity. The risk is in the overlap.
Cambridge Associates notes that venture funds often end up holding liquid tokens after a TGE. That can raise the volatility of the fund’s own reported value, sometimes as early as three to five years into its life. A venture fund marking a volatile token has its own reasons to sell when lockups end. A liquid fund looking at your token will model exactly that.
So write venture terms with the liquid buyer in mind. Stagger unlocks, cap what any one investor can release in a month, and publish the calendar. If you plan treasury sales to liquid funds after launch, disclose the programme and keep its terms consistent with what venture investors were told. For how the price you set now constrains later rounds, see the guide on round valuation in Related.
What does the 2026 market change about your pitch?
The 2026 pitch has to answer one question both buyers now ask: why own this token rather than a liquid, regulated exposure to the sector? Galaxy’s point about allocators choosing between crypto venture, spot products and treasury companies applies to your round too.
Two more figures from the second-quarter report, as summarised by crypto.news, shape who you will meet. Only five new crypto venture funds closed in the quarter, together raising about $3.9 billion, the fewest new funds in a quarter since the third quarter of 2019. The median fund was about $80 million, while the average was near $378 million. Capital is gathering in a small number of large managers.
Geography is concentrated too. US-headquartered companies took about 73.5% of second-quarter capital but only about 39% of deals. For a team based elsewhere, our inference is that the larger cheques will often come with US-style expectations on paperwork, governance and reporting, whatever the jurisdiction of the foundation.
Neither figure tells you what a given fund will pay. Both tell you that the pool of large, active buyers is smaller than the deal count suggests, so plan the process around fewer, deeper conversations.
The answer has to be specific to the token: a cash flow it captures, a use only it provides, or a governance right that matters. If the honest answer is that the equity captures the value, raise equity and say so. A token added to an equity story for valuation reasons is the first thing a liquid fund will discount.
What goes wrong: five advisers, one blind spot each
A raise can easily have five advisers who never meet. A placement agent runs the round and optimises for closing. Counsel drafts the SAFE and token warrant and optimises for enforceability. A market maker negotiates a token loan, an exchange sets listing terms, and an agency plans the launch.
Each does its job, and nobody owns the whole. The venture terms allow a large unlock in month seven, the market maker’s option strikes sit near the launch price, and the agency promises liquidity at listing. Six months after launch, the first liquid fund to look reads the unlock calendar, models the overhang and passes.
The fix is a single owner who reconciles every agreement against one calendar before signature. That owner should ask one question of each document: what does this allow someone to sell, and when?
How Alcyone approaches it
Alcyone treats the raise and the launch as one plan, because the terms agreed with venture funds decide what liquid funds will be willing to buy later. Alcyone’s fundraising and tokenomics advisory (opens in new tab) covers fundraising strategy and vesting structures, and every plan names an owner for each part. Its partners built and operate the TrustSwap Launchpad, and their record includes more than $100M raised for the projects they launched. Engagements begin with a fixed-scope, fixed-fee assessment.