Closed format vs. open call: the unit-economics argument.
Most studios run on outside founders and spin-outs. We don’t. The reason is not philosophical — it’s arithmetic. Here is what the spreadsheet looks like once you actually plug in attribution and time-to-revenue.
The two shapes
The standard venture studio is structured around an open call. Ideas come in (from the studio, founders, or a curated pipeline); a founder is recruited or matched; the studio capitalizes the project; the project spins out; the studio retains 30–60% equity and a board seat. The studio team handles many projects at once because it does not operate any of them after handoff. Over a five-year cycle, a studio of this shape might launch fifteen to thirty projects.
The closed format inverts most of these defaults. The studio team is small. There are no outside founders. The same operators who originate the project also build it, ship it, and run it for as long as it lives. Spin-outs happen rarely and only when an internal project earns its independence. Over the same five-year cycle, this kind of studio launches ten to fifteen projects, of which three to five are still operating at year five.
Where the open call leaks money
The open-call model is well-suited to a particular era of venture capital: cheap money, many founders, long timelines, large addressable markets. It does three things badly when those conditions soften.
First: the founder-search overhead is huge and goes uncounted in most studio P&Ls. The cost of running an applicant pipeline, interviewing, vetting, onboarding, and matching founders to projects is a six-to-twelve-month tax on every project — paid in studio team time, before a line of code exists.
Second: equity dilution at spin-out. The founder needs enough equity to be motivated for years; the studio needs enough to justify the prior work; outside investors need enough to make the next round happen. By the time a typical studio-incubated company exits, the studio share has been compressed to the point that even a strong outcome returns a modest multiple on the studio’s invested time and capital.
Third: attribution. When a spun-out company succeeds, it is hard to argue that the studio created the outcome rather than the founder. When it fails, the studio is on the hook anyway. The asymmetry is uncomfortable to look at on a spreadsheet, which is probably why most studios don’t.
What the spreadsheet says
Take the same hypothetical project. Year zero idea, year one MVP, year two product-market fit, year three real revenue, year five exit at a 5x multiple on invested capital. Round numbers, intentionally.
Even being generous to the open-call model, the closed format dominates on every line that matters. The exception is launch volume — an open-call studio can launch more projects in the same window. That advantage was decisive when capital was cheap and a single big winner could carry the portfolio. It is a liability when neither of those conditions holds.
The open call is optimized for a market that does not currently exist. The closed format is optimized for the one that does.
What it costs us
The closed format is not free. We give up two things deliberately. We give up the founder pipeline as a source of project ideas — everything has to come from the four of us. We give up the option to scale by hiring — the team is fixed, so we cannot run more projects in parallel by adding people.
Both costs are real. We accept them because the alternative — the open-call model with its founder search, dilution, and timeline — doesn’t produce the kind of returns we want, at the kind of risk we are willing to underwrite, at the cost of capital we now have to live with.
When the open call is right
We’re not arguing the open-call model is broken everywhere. For studios with a strong founder network, deep specialization in a particular sector, and a fund structure that can wait a decade for outliers, it still works. We just don’t fit any of those conditions, and most new studios in 2026 don’t either.
The closed format is the answer for the rest of us — the small, AI-native, post-cheap-money studios who need their economics to work without a unicorn. There aren’t many of us yet. There are going to be more.
← all essays and notes