I’m a huge fan of what you’re saying especially on the axis of blended capital — where you use the “quasi public” part not to make the capital cheaper, or even more risk tolerant, but a lot more patient.
There is a huge challenge (and opportunity) in new financing models for companies operating at the intersection of bits and atoms.
This is the new frontier, and - I suspect - is where the next trillion dollar businesses are most likely to be built.
You cannot finance all these physical assets, inventory, manufacturing capacity, infrastructure, etc. purely with equity.
Traditional debt is not yet comfortable with the risks - these companies are too nascent.
I suspect the winning VCs in this space will learn to think like infrastructure investors (or hire for that skillset). The best will be thinking about capital structures beyond equity at the point of investment - writing an equity cheque but also helping design the full stack of capital the company will need, including warehouse facilities, equipment financing, and offtake-backed debt.
This is a very different skill set from traditional venture. Instead of "we can help you hire a VP of Sales," it's "we can help you structure a $200M debt facility against your contracted revenue."
Government and quasi-government capital as a catalyst for robotics, new models in life sciences, etc. will also be very important. This is exactly what has allowed China to take the lead in robotics. The state has been willing to think very long term and absorb massive up-front losses, act as a first customer, etc.
We can and should learn from them.