MY FIRST PUBLIC DCA ON PULSECHAIN STARTS TODAY WITH $200 ⚡ LET THE JOURNEY TO GLORY BEGIN. POWERED BY @LibertySwapFi AND @zkxwallet 🚀 WALLET : 0xFe04A5F0E3C76bEC68C734e46e2610aB865F1570 TOKENS : $PCOCK $ZERO $ZEN $DEVC $pDAI

Starting June 1st, 2026, I’ve decided to begin my DCA journey with the PulseChain Community, inspired by my good friend @10dollarsdream. 🚀 I’ll be DCA’ing $100 every Friday into 5 tokens on PulseChain: $20 $PCOCK 🦚 $20 $ZERO Ø $20 $ZEN 🧘 $20 $DEVC 🕵️‍♂️ $20 $pDAI 💵 Let the journey begin… ⚡️

You have to understand why (Pump . tires) was created, it’s because core holders does not fully complete a blockchain ecosystem, it must be equally distributed between many things, I’ve said before memes will run first, I stand on that & a $1 $pDAI. ⚔️🛡️ $pDAI IS $1. 💥⚡️🚀🌕

Are mega-funds really taking over seed? I decided to look at the behavior of the world's largest VC funds ($10B AUM) at early stages and answer a simple question: should EMs worry about their structural edge? So I used @harmonic_ai and looked at all pre-seed, seed, and seed extension rounds across 3 eras: - SaaS Era (2015–2019): 5 years of a normal market. Cloud, SaaS, fintech were the dominant theses. - ZIRP Era (2020–2022): 3 years of zero interest rates and free capital. - AI Era (2023–2026): from ChatGPT to the present day. We focused on one core metric: average number of early-stage deals per year for each fund in each era. Here are a few insights we found interesting: 1/ In the SaaS era, a typical mega-fund made 10–20 early-stage deals per year. This was moderate, targeted seed activity – a complement to the core Series A/B and later strategy. 2/ In the ZIRP era, everyone scaled up. Each of the 10 funds increased their early-stage deals/year (some by 2–3x), because capital was free, competition at later stages was fierce, and seed felt like a cheap entry point. 3/ Then came the AI era and it became clear this was no temporary effect. Even as rates rose and capital became more expensive with the end of ZIRP, @a16z and @generalcatalyst posted peak early-stage activity. > @a16z: 16.6 → 48.7 → 75.3 deals/year. A 4x increase from the SaaS era. > @generalcatalyst: 15.2 → 31.7 → 61.5 deals/year. Also 4x. The most interesting finding, though, is 3 distinct behavioral models: 1/ "Accelerators" - deals/year in the AI era exceed ZIRP levels: @a16z (75.3/yr), @generalcatalyst (61.5/yr), @khoslaventures (31.5/yr). These funds didn't just stay active in seed after free money ended – they doubled down. 2/ "Stabilizers" – deals/year in the AI era are slightly below ZIRP peak, but well above SaaS-era levels: @sequoia (19.6 → 49.3 → 50.6), @Accel (15.2 → 43.3 → 34.7), @lightspeedvp (11.6 → 41.7 → 32.1). The ZIRP spike moderated, but activity levels remain sustainably 2–3x above the SaaS era. There's no return to the old normal. 3/ "Disciplined" – steady, gradual growth across all eras: @BessemerVP (9.4 → 23.0 → 20.9), @Lux_Capital (7.2 → 14.3 → 14.7), @IndexVentures (10.0 → 23.3 → 17.6). No ZIRP spikes, no AI explosions – but the baseline has durably shifted upward. So in the SaaS era, these 10 funds collectively made roughly 140–150 early-stage deals per year. In the AI era – around 370–400. And I think they just set up a new, sustained baseline, not just doubled after a ZIRP-peak era. For an LP evaluating an emerging seed manager, this is the most important context. The early-stage market your GP is investing in is one where 10 funds with $10B in AUM are doing dozens deals a year. An emerging manager needs to be able to articulate exactly where, in that market, they have the right to win.