Capital Is Centralizing. Innovation Isn’t.

Ben Horowitz made some comments about the future of investing. It got me thinking...

When Ben Horowitz talks about venture capital, he rarely talks about it narrowly. He frames it as a force that shapes opportunity, institutional capacity, and long-term outcomes for society. That framing matters — because whether we like it or not, venture capital now plays a role far beyond generating financial returns.

Horowitz’s articulation of American Dynamism, alongside the fact that Andreessen Horowitz raised an unprecedented share (18% to be exact) of U.S. venture capital in a single cycle, is not just a data point. It’s a signal. Capital is consolidating. Agendas are becoming explicit. And venture is increasingly being discussed as part of a broader system that includes policy, procurement, and long-term economic strategy.

I find much of this compelling. But I also believe the way this idea is often framed captures only part of what is actually happening at a global scale.

VC Has Crossed a Threshold

One thing is now undeniable: venture capital is no longer just about identifying promising companies early and helping them scale. It has become a mechanism through which entire architectures — AI, financial infrastructure, healthcare systems, energy, defense, education — are financed, shaped, and normalized.

In that context, the idea of “dynamism” is not ideological. It is structural.

Large, well-capitalized platforms can take on regulatory complexity, fund long development cycles, influence standards, and align private innovation with public demand. At a macro level, this works. It creates coherence. It allows certain kinds of complex systems to be built at all.

But macro coherence almost always introduces micro constraints.

Capital Concentration Solves One Problem and Creates Another

When a small number of firms control a large share of venture capital, the system becomes more legible — but also more prescriptive.

Capital naturally flows toward:

• established narratives,

• recognizable founder profiles,

• categories that fit existing mental models,

• and strategies that align with institutional priorities.

This isn’t a critique of intent. It’s simply how large systems behave.

The tradeoff is subtle but important. As capital concentrates, the surface area for non-obvious innovation narrows. Decisions become layered. Theses harden. Risk is evaluated not only on potential outcomes, but on coherence with broader agendas.

This dynamic is efficient at scale.
It is far less effective at sensing what is emerging outside the center of gravity.

American Dynamism Is Directionally Right but Incomplete

Where I begin to think differently is not in the belief that America matters, or that systems need to be built, or that venture capital plays a role in shaping the future.

It is in the implicit assumption that the most important innovation will continue to originate, consolidate, and resolve primarily within a single geography.

That assumption no longer holds.

Over the last decade, three shifts have taken place quietly but decisively.

First, technical capability has globalized.
Exceptional founders, engineers, and operators now emerge everywhere, with access to the same tools, knowledge, and distribution that were once geographically concentrated.

Second, capital formation has diversified.
Long-term, sophisticated capital is increasingly active across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Europe — often with patience, scale, and strategic intent.

Third, ecosystem design has become intentional.
Governments and institutions outside the U.S. are actively constructing environments that support entrepreneurship through talent visas, regulatory frameworks, procurement pathways, and infrastructure.

These regions are not trying to replicate Silicon Valley. They are building their own innovation systems, optimized for their markets, constraints, and ambitions.

The World Is Becoming Multi-Node

This does not imply the decline of the United States. It implies a change in topology.

The future looks less like a single dominant center and more like a network of supernodes — interconnected, competitive, and mutually reinforcing. Value is increasingly created locally, scaled regionally, and realized globally.

The most interesting opportunities do not come from betting against any one country or region. They come from understanding how innovation flows between systems and where those flows are still inefficient or underdeveloped.

Why I’m Focused on Emerging Regions, not Labels

My interest is not in advocating for “emerging managers” as a category.
It is in investing early in emerging regions that are producing extraordinary talent and increasingly capable companies, often before those ecosystems become obvious to global capital.

I believe many of the next generational companies will be built:

• outside traditional venture centers,

• inside fast-forming ecosystems,

• by founders who understand both local realities and global ambition.

Some of these companies will enter U.S. markets (through commercial expansion interests)
Some will partner with or be acquired by global incumbents.
Others will become dominant players in large, under-appreciated regions.
Some will define entirely new categories.

The common thread is not geography.
It is systems leverage.

A Different Interpretation of Dynamism

I support the idea of dynamism. But I interpret it differently.

To me, dynamism is not about pulling innovation inward.
It is about remaining adaptive in a world where innovation is increasingly distributed.

The systems that endure are not those that attempt to control everything, but those that can:

• integrate external innovation,

• set interoperable standards,

• attract global talent,

• and deploy capital where it compounds most effectively.

This requires openness, not isolation. Coordination, not consolidation alone.

Venture as Systems Thinking

We are now having a more honest conversation about what venture capital actually does. It shapes incentives. It allocates attention. It determines which systems get built and which never do.

In that sense, venture is no longer just a market.
It is part of the operating system of the global economy.

I am betting that the next decade belongs to investors who understand:

• how ecosystems are constructed,

• how power and capability shift across regions,

• and how to allocate capital across a multi-node world before it becomes consensus.

The opportunity is not ideological.
It is structural.

And it starts with seeing the system clearly.