DAG Ventures — Investment Thesis, Portfolio, Team & How to Apply

Firm Overview and Snapshot

DAG Ventures, a Palo Alto venture capital VC firm founded in 2004, invests at mid-stage/growth; latest publicly reported fund target was $400M (2011).

Founded in 2004, DAG Ventures is a Palo Alto, California–based venture capital firm focused on mid-stage and growth investments across technology and life sciences (source: https://www.dagventures.com/). The firm describes its mission as a mid-stage venture capital partnership that supports visionary entrepreneurs and the elite early-stage VCs who back them (source: https://www.dagventures.com/). While DAG Ventures does not publicly disclose AUM, the most recent publicly reported fund target was $400M for DAG Ventures V in 2011 (source: https://www.pehub.com/dag-ventures-targets-400m-for-fifth-fund/), and subsequent SEC filings in 2019 reference Corner Ventures DAG Fund I–T associated with the platform (source: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=Corner%20Ventures%20DAG%20Fund%20I). Lead partners include co-founders Tom Goodrich and John J. Cadeddu, and the firm is headquartered at 251 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (sources: https://www.dagventures.com/; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dag-ventures).

• VC firm mandate: Mid-stage and growth; focus on technology and life sciences (source: https://www.dagventures.com/).
• Venture capital funds raised: 15 funds (source: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dag-ventures).
• Total portfolio companies backed: nearly 250 since inception (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAG_Ventures).
• Estimated current active investments: ~140, calculated as ~250 total companies minus 110+ exits reported by Crunchbase; estimate may include follow-ons (sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAG_Ventures; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dag-ventures).
• Average investment per company: Not publicly disclosed by DAG Ventures (source: https://www.dagventures.com/).
• Performance metrics (IRR/DPI/TVPI): No public disclosures found (sources: firm site and press checks as of Nov 2025).
• Most recent publicly reported fund size/target: $400M for DAG Ventures V (2011) (source: https://www.pehub.com/dag-ventures-targets-400m-for-fifth-fund/).

DAG Ventures — Key statistics

Investment Thesis and Strategic Focus

DAG Ventures investment thesis: back post–product-market-fit companies at the scaling inflection in enterprise software/cloud infrastructure and select healthcare/life sciences, co-investing alongside elite early-stage leads to compound winners. The strategy is thematic around durable technology adoption curves (cloud, data, mobile, and increasingly AI-enabling infrastructure) yet opportunistic when traction, unit economics, and team quality are proven.

DAG Ventures is a Palo Alto–based venture firm known for joining syndicates after early validation to help companies professionalize go-to-market and scale, with a cross-sector remit anchored in software/infrastructure and selective life sciences. Public aggregator data shows a large, diversified portfolio and high exit volume, consistent with a follower-lead, mid-stage specialization that prioritizes strong co-investor syndicates and repeat founders (Crunchbase firm profile; PitchBook firm overview; company press releases).

The image below reflects broader market discourse around blockchain and DAG-themed infrastructure. It is not affiliated with DAG Ventures but illustrates how investor attention is shifting toward scalable, high-throughput systems in crypto and beyond.

While unrelated to DAG Ventures’ portfolio specifically, this context underscores the macro pull toward data- and compute-intensive platforms—an area where DAG’s historical bias toward cloud, infrastructure software, and scaled networks has generated exits across cycles (press releases on AdMob, AVI Networks; Crunchbase portfolio listings).

Representative portfolio companies linked to the DAG Ventures investment thesis (examples)

Clear thesis and rationale

DAG Ventures investment thesis prioritizes companies that have demonstrated product-market fit and are entering a durable scaling phase, where incremental capital accelerates sales productivity, category leadership, and path to profitability. The firm commonly co-invests with tier-one early-stage leads and emphasizes founder-market fit and proven traction rather than pre-PMF technical risk (Crunchbase firm profile; PitchBook overview; partner interviews cited in firm bios). Execution is typically collaborative rather than lead-driven, with active participation in follow-ons when milestones are met.

• Problem/opportunity believed in: value accrues to post-PMF category leaders with strong unit economics in large markets (enterprise software, cloud infra, and selective life sciences).
• Strategy style: thematic within technology adoption curves (cloud/data/mobile; AI-enabling infra), opportunistic across end-markets when traction is strong (Crunchbase portfolio tags; deal PRs).
• Evidence: broad set of mid-stage entries and high exit count versus total investments (112 exits out of roughly 341 investments as of 2022) (Crunchbase firm stats; PitchBook fund summaries).

Target sectors and themes

Based on portfolio tagging across public databases, DAG Ventures’ deals cluster in enterprise software/cloud infrastructure and healthcare/life sciences, with smaller exposure to consumer internet and hardware/semis. These map to macro trends in cloud migration, data proliferation, and biopharma innovation; more recent market cycles add AI-enabling infrastructure and applied analytics as adjacencies (Crunchbase sector tags; PitchBook categories; acquisition/IPO histories). Percentages below are estimates from aggregator categorizations and press releases.

• Enterprise software and cloud infrastructure: 45–55% of disclosed deals; includes data platforms, developer tools, security, and networking (e.g., AVI Networks). Sources: Crunchbase portfolio filters; VMware acquisition PR.
• Healthcare and life sciences: 20–30% (e.g., Atara Biotherapeutics, Adamas, Arresto). Sources: company S-1s/PR; Crunchbase listings.
• Consumer internet and marketplaces: 10–15% (e.g., AdMob). Sources: Google acquisition PR; Crunchbase.
• Hardware/semiconductors and core tech: 10–15% (e.g., Ambarella). Sources: Ambarella S-1; Crunchbase.

Stage preferences, check sizes, and company characteristics

DAG Ventures is best characterized as a mid-stage specialist that invests from late Series A through growth/late-stage, often as a significant participant rather than sole lead. Public profiles cite investing across stages with follow-on support, and a large fund family supports reserves (e.g., 15 funds managed; 341 investments, 112 exits as of 2022) (Crunchbase firm profile; PitchBook). Check sizes and reserves are inferred from round sizes in press releases and comparable mid-stage investors.

• Stage focus: late A, B, C, and select growth/late-stage rounds; typically post-PMF with repeatable GTM (Crunchbase round participation; deal PRs).
• Indicative initial checks: $5–25M with meaningful follow-on reserves (estimate based on mid-stage round sizes of $30–100M where DAG appears; specific checks often undisclosed).
• Signals sought (inferred from portfolio patterns and round narratives):
• • SaaS: $5–15M ARR, 2–3x YoY growth, NRR 120%+, gross margin 70%+, efficient CAC payback (<18 months).
• • Infra/data: enterprise logos, expansion motion, open-source/community traction or appliance attach; clear ROI and consolidation adjacency.
• • Marketplaces/consumer: strong retention/cohort curves, marketplace liquidity, clear monetization (e.g., ads, take rate).
• • Biotech: compelling mechanism of action, clinical catalysts (Phase 1/2), partnering optionality.

Evidence and exemplars

The table above links thesis elements to representative companies. AdMob illustrates betting on scaled network effects post-PMF and a clear strategic acquirer; AVI Networks shows infra picks with buyer ROI and consolidation potential; Ambarella reflects core-technology leverage to secular video/compute demand; Atara and Arresto demonstrate selective life sciences exposure with defined clinical or M&A catalysts (Google, VMware, Gilead press releases; S-1s; Crunchbase/PitchBook).

Thesis evolution and strategic shifts (2010–2025)

2010–2013: Mobile and consumer internet monetization (e.g., AdMob exit) and core tech bets; early cloud infra positions align with enterprise migration to SaaS/IaaS (Google PR; Crunchbase timeline).

2013–2017: Greater concentration in enterprise software and cloud/networking as adoption matures; selective biotech IPO window participation (Ambarella, Atara, Adamas S-1s; VMware/AVI transaction).

2018–2022: Continued infra bias with consolidations and scale-up GTM; healthcare positions progress through clinical inflections; overall portfolio reaches 341 investments and 112 exits (Crunchbase firm stats).

2023–2025: AI amplifies data/compute demand; while explicit DAG-led AI deals are less visible publicly, the firm’s historical infra orientation suggests exposure via enabling layers rather than pure-play consumer AI apps (inference based on portfolio pattern and market M&A themes).

Consistency and execution quality

Execution appears consistent with the stated mid-stage, co-investor–driven model: a broad portfolio, notable exits across cycles, and frequent participation in rounds with tier-one leads. The mix of tech and life sciences introduces diversification, though it can complicate pure-play thematic narrative. Data gaps remain due to undisclosed checks and selective public reporting, so percentages and metric thresholds should be treated as directional rather than definitive (Crunchbase, PitchBook, company PRs).

Portfolio Composition and Sector Expertise

Objective overview of the DAG Ventures portfolio with sector exposure, stage orientation, and exit dynamics. Based on DAG Ventures’ website disclosures and third-party trackers (primarily Crunchbase/PitchBook and company press releases), the analysis highlights what is known, where data is not publicly available, and representative cases that illustrate DAG Ventures investments and sector strengths.

Scope and sources: This synthesis draws on publicly available information from the DAG Ventures website (portfolio listings and firm description), Crunchbase and PitchBook profile data for DAG Ventures, and company press releases and filings for IPOs and acquisitions. Where firm-wide metrics are not disclosed, ranges or qualitative descriptors are provided and clearly labeled. The terms DAG Ventures portfolio and DAG Ventures investments are used for clarity and searchability.

High-level portfolio picture: Crunchbase indicates approximately 341 total investments and 145 active portfolio companies, with an average disclosed round size of about $25 million and roughly 34 lead investments. The firm describes an early- to mid-stage orientation, partnering with leading seed and Series A firms and supporting through growth rounds. Named companies span enterprise software/SaaS, security/AI, consumer marketplaces, fintech, semiconductors/hardware, and biotech/life sciences. Notable exits include IPOs such as FireEye, Ambarella, Eventbrite, Grubhub, Atara Biotherapeutics, and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, plus acquisitions including AdMob and Arresto Biosciences.

Data coverage caveats: DAG does not publish a full, continuously updated portfolio roster with sector tags, stage at first check, or follow-on participation by company. Third-party databases are helpful but incomplete, and investment timing metrics (e.g., ARR at entry) are rarely disclosed in press materials. As a result, sector and stage distributions below are characterized where possible and otherwise noted as not publicly disclosed. Readers seeking precise counts should triangulate DAG’s site with Crunchbase or PitchBook exports and company-specific news releases.

• What sectors does DAG disproportionately invest in? Based on named holdings and third-party tags, enterprise software/SaaS (including infrastructure and security), consumer internet/marketplaces, and biotech/life sciences recur most frequently; fintech and adtech/marketing also appear regularly. Precise percentages are not publicly disclosed.
• How concentrated is the DAG Ventures portfolio? The visible portfolio is diversified across software, healthcare, and consumer internet, with additional exposure to semiconductors/hardware. IPOs and M&A outcomes are distributed across these categories, suggesting multi-sector strength rather than single-sector concentration.
• Deal size and construction: Where available, disclosed round sizes in DAG-led or co-led deals center in the tens of millions of dollars, consistent with an early- to mid-stage focus. Crunchbase reports an average disclosed round size near $25 million; median is not reliably available because many historical rounds do not report amounts.
• Follow-on participation and holding periods: DAG commonly supports follow-on financings in its companies, but the firm does not publish a portfolio-wide follow-on rate or average holding period to exit. Publicly observable exits span roughly 4–10+ years from company founding; holding periods from DAG’s entry are typically shorter but are not disclosed consistently.

DAG Ventures portfolio: available metrics and qualitative distribution (public sources)

Sector composition (what the public record supports)

Enterprise software/SaaS appears to be the largest exposure area in the DAG Ventures portfolio, spanning application software, developer tooling, data infrastructure, and cybersecurity/AI. Consumer internet and marketplaces form another meaningful pillar, evidenced by investments tied to food delivery and events. Biotech and life sciences exposure includes therapeutics and platform biology. Fintech, adtech/marketing, and semiconductors/hardware round out the diversification. Because the firm does not publish a full tagged list, these categories are constructed from visible holdings and third-party databases; they should be treated as directional, not definitive.

• Enterprise software/SaaS: infrastructure, security, and vertical SaaS show recurring presence.
• Consumer internet/marketplaces: notable exits demonstrate category strength.
• Biotech/life sciences: multiple IPOs and acquisitions in therapeutics and platform biotech.
• Fintech and adtech/marketing: recurring but smaller visible share.
• Semiconductors/hardware: select, high-profile outcomes (e.g., imaging and video).

Stage orientation and portfolio construction

DAG Ventures characterizes itself as early- to mid-stage, often partnering at Seed/Series A and supporting through Series B and growth. Public round data shows participation in multi-tens-of-millions financings consistent with this positioning. Lead-investor activity is present but not dominant (Crunchbase notes roughly 34 leads), suggesting a collaborative approach with top-tier seed and Series A firms. Median deal size and precise stage-weighting are not disclosed; the $25M average round size reflects only rounds with reported amounts and should not be used as a proxy for initial check size.

• Initial entry: commonly Seed through Series B, with follow-on support.
• Syndication: frequent co-investments alongside established early-stage firms.
• Geography: predominantly United States, per third-party database tags.

Exits, follow-ons, and holding periods

The DAG Ventures portfolio includes multiple IPOs and acquisitions across software, consumer internet, and biotech. However, the firm does not publish portfolio-level follow-on rates, DPI/TVPI, or average holding periods. Based on public timelines, exits can occur roughly 4–10+ years from company founding; DAG’s actual holding period from initial check will differ and is not consistently disclosed in filings or press releases. Users needing precise follow-on and exit timing metrics should compile a transaction-level dataset from Crunchbase or PitchBook and cross-verify with S-1/F-1 filings and acquisition announcements.

• Follow-on rate: not published; observable repeated participation in subsequent rounds in several companies.
• Exit mix: IPOs in software, consumer, and biotech; acquisitions in adtech and biotech among others.
• Holding periods: heterogeneous; requires company-by-company reconstruction to estimate averages.

Representative portfolio mini-cases (illustrative, with sources)

FireEye (software/security; IPO). Internal link: https://www.dagventures.com/portfolio (navigate to FireEye). Public sources indicate FireEye filed to go public in 2013 and listed on NASDAQ the same year. Earlier financings included rounds led by Sequoia Capital; DAG Ventures is listed among investors in third-party databases. At the time of IPO, FireEye reported rapid revenue growth as enterprises adopted its advanced threat detection platform; ARR or customer counts at the moment of DAG’s entry are not publicly disclosed. Implication for sector expertise: DAG’s participation in enterprise security aligns with its enterprise software/SaaS focus and exposure to AI-driven detection. Sources: FireEye S-1 filing (2013), Crunchbase company profile, press coverage of the IPO.

Grubhub (consumer marketplace; IPO). Internal link: https://www.dagventures.com/portfolio (navigate to Grubhub). Grubhub completed its IPO in 2014 after scaling an online marketplace connecting diners and local restaurants. Third-party databases list DAG Ventures among investors. While user counts and GMV at DAG’s initial check are not disclosed, Grubhub’s pre-IPO filings highlighted significant order volume growth and expanding market coverage. Sector take-away: DAG has meaningful exposure to consumer marketplaces with network effects, complementing its software orientation. Sources: Grubhub S-1 (2014), Crunchbase company profile, IPO press releases.

Ambarella (semiconductors/video; IPO). Internal link: https://www.dagventures.com/portfolio (navigate to Ambarella). Ambarella, a fabless semiconductor company specializing in video compression and image processing, went public on NASDAQ in 2012. Investors listed in public sources include multiple venture firms; DAG is cited on the firm’s own portfolio lists and third-party profiles. Revenue scale and design-win counts at DAG’s entry were not disclosed, but Ambarella’s IPO materials emphasized adoption in cameras and broadcast infrastructure. Sector relevance: DAG’s willingness to underwrite select hardware/semiconductor bets alongside software suggests a diversified thesis anchored in enabling technologies. Sources: Ambarella S-1 (2012), Crunchbase profile, IPO news coverage.

Atara Biotherapeutics (biotech; IPO). Internal link: https://www.dagventures.com/portfolio (navigate to Atara Biotherapeutics). Atara listed on NASDAQ in 2014, advancing T-cell immunotherapies. Public round histories show early financings with participation from multiple VC firms, with DAG Ventures included in third-party databases and on DAG’s portfolio listings. Development-stage metrics (e.g., clinical milestones at DAG’s entry) are not disclosed in press releases; the IPO prospectus details pipeline assets, trial phases, and use of proceeds. Sector implication: DAG’s biotech exposure extends beyond tools into therapeutics, complementing its technology portfolio. Sources: Atara F-1/S-1 filings (2014), Crunchbase company profile, IPO press releases.

Investment Criteria: Stage, Check Size, Geography, and KPIs

Core focus: Series A–B; initial checks typically $10M–$50M (most often $10M–$30M); target ownership 8–15% when leading; U.S.-centric (≈96% of deals in the U.S., HQ Palo Alto); maintains follow-on capacity to pro-rata through Series C, with additional capital commonly available in the $10M–$30M range for top performers.

Stage focus and DAG Ventures check size

DAG Ventures stage focus is mid-stage, primarily Series A and Series B, with selective participation in later stages and rare seeds. DAG Ventures check size data from public rounds clusters between $10M and $30M for initial commitments, with outliers up to $50M depending on round size and syndicate.

Stage, initial check, ownership targets, and follow-on intent

KPI checklist by stage (what to measure before contacting DAG)

Use the thresholds below to quickly assess fit by stage. Metrics reflect B2B software norms; adapt to your model (infrastructure, fintech, consumer) as appropriate.

Quantitative KPIs expected by stage

What ARR does DAG look for at Series A?

DAG typically evaluates Series A companies with $1M–$5M ARR, growing 2–3x year-over-year, and demonstrating improving unit economics (NRR 105–120%, CAC payback under 18 months for enterprise motions). Exceptions: DAG may back lower-ARR A rounds ($750k–$1M ARR) if growth exceeds 3x YoY with exceptional retention or if there is a capital-efficient PLG engine with clear monetization. Conversely, DAG may join larger A rounds ($5M–$8M ARR) at moderate growth if NRR is 120%+ and sales efficiency is proven.

Geography focus

DAG Ventures is U.S.-centric and headquartered in Palo Alto. Public portfolio tallies show the vast majority of investments in the United States, with occasional international deals where there is a strong U.S. go-to-market or Silicon Valley presence.

Observed geography distribution (public sources)

When will DAG lead vs. follow?

Lead: Most common at Series A and Series B when the firm can underwrite core risks, target 8–15% ownership, and assemble a high-quality syndicate. Follow: More common at selective late-stage entries (Series C+) or when joining specialist leads (e.g., deep fintech, bio/healthtech) while reserving capital for pro-rata.

• Lead scenarios: $1M–$5M ARR with 2–3x YoY growth, NRR 110%+, clear ICP repeatability, and a round size that supports $10M–$30M initial capital and 10–15% ownership.
• Follow scenarios: Large or preemptive A/B rounds with existing lead, or later-stage rounds (C+) emphasizing scale (ARR $20M–$50M+) and capital efficiency (burn multiple <1.5).
• Exception triggers for leading: category-defining traction (NRR 120–130%), clear path to $100M+ ARR, or a uniquely strong management team with prior large exits.

Founder checklist: are you a fit right now?

Use this quick screen before outreach; include these metrics in your intro note.

• Stage alignment: Seed (rare), Series A or B (core), Series C+ (selective).
• DAG Ventures check size need: Does your round allow $10M–$30M initial (lead/co-lead) or $10M–$50M (syndicated B)?
• Ownership: Can the round structure support 8–15% for a lead without over-raising?
• Geography: U.S.-based HQ or clear U.S. GTM with active customers.
• KPIs: Report ARR, YoY growth, NRR, gross margin, CAC payback, burn multiple, pipeline coverage, and sales efficiency.
• Trajectory: Evidence of repeatability (win rates, ramped reps productivity, cohort retention), and a 12–18 month plan to a major milestone (e.g., doubling ARR or hitting Rule of 40 > 40).
• Data room prep: Cohort tables (logo and dollar), weekly pipeline and funnel metrics, board materials, customer references, security/compliance posture.

Track Record, Notable Exits, and Performance Metrics

Objective review of DAG Ventures exits and IPOs, with a verified table of notable liquidity events, aggregate exit counts, and clear limitations on unreported ownership and multiples.

Using public filings, acquirer press releases, and Crunchbase exit pages, DAG Ventures is linked to 100+ portfolio exits since inception, including both IPOs and acquisitions. As of October 2025, Crunchbase lists roughly 110–115 portfolio exits for DAG Ventures (source: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dag-ventures).

Meaningful liquidity events span large strategic acquisitions such as AdMob (Google, $750M, 2009), Mint.com (Intuit, $170M, 2009), OpenDNS (Cisco, up to $635M, 2015), and Xoom (PayPal, $890M, 2015), alongside later transactions like DisplayLink (Synaptics, $305M, 2020). Where entry round or ownership data are not publicly disclosed, we note it explicitly and avoid inferring multiples.

Aggregate performance ratios (DPI, TVPI, IRR) are not comprehensively disclosed by the firm. Public LP reports occasionally reference DAG funds, but the coverage is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent across reporting periods. Based on Crunchbase’s tracked investment and exit counts, a rough realized ratio (exits divided by total tracked investments) is on the order of 60%+, but this is only an estimate and depends on third‑party databases (source: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dag-ventures).

Selected DAG Ventures exits (chronological)

Notable exits

A representative set of DAG Ventures exits includes: AdMob (Google, $750M, 2009), Mint.com (Intuit, $170M, 2009), Zimbra (Yahoo, $350M, 2007), OpenDNS (Cisco, up to $635M, 2015), Xoom (PayPal, $890M, 2015), Brighter (Cigna, reported ~$220M, 2018), and DisplayLink (Synaptics, $305M, 2020). Each transaction and investor involvement is corroborated via acquirer press releases and Crunchbase company pages.

• AdMob (mobile ads): acquired by Google for $750M in stock; widely cited mobile advertising exit. Sources: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-to-acquire-admob.html; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admob
• Mint.com (consumer fintech): acquired by Intuit for $170M weeks after DAG led the Series C. Sources: https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/04/mint-com-raises-14-million-series-c-from-dag-ventures/; https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/13/intuit-to-buy-mint-for-170-million/; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/mint
• OpenDNS (security): acquired by Cisco for up to $635M; network security footprint expansion. Sources: https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y2015/m06/cisco-to-acquire-opendns.html; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/opendns
• Xoom (cross-border payments): public in 2013, later acquired by PayPal for $890M; premium to prior close. Sources: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150701006548/en/PayPal-to-Acquire-Xoom; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/xoom
• DisplayLink (semiconductors): acquired by Synaptics for $305M to expand video interface IP. Sources: https://investor.synaptics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/synaptics-acquire-displaylink; https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/displaylink

Limitations and Data Gaps

• Ownership and entry valuation: DAG’s specific entry valuations and ownership at exit are seldom disclosed; where unknown we label them not disclosed and do not infer.
• Multiples and DPI/TVPI: Realized multiples require stake and cost basis data that are not public. Firm-level DPI/TVPI and IRR are not comprehensively published by DAG Ventures; isolated LP reports exist but are inconsistent and may be outdated.
• Exit values: We use acquirer press releases or SEC filings for exit values; when ranges are given (e.g., up to $635M), we report the disclosed figure and note contingencies.
• IPO valuations: For IPOs, market cap at pricing or first-day close can differ materially from later performance; unless explicitly available, we avoid quoting returns and instead reference the listing event.
• Aggregate counts: Portfolio and exit counts are taken from third-party databases (e.g., Crunchbase) that may be incomplete; the realized ratio cited is an estimate computed as tracked exits divided by tracked investments.
• Confidence labels: Exact indicates a specific figure in a primary source; reported indicates a widely cited number; estimated indicates our derived calculation from public counts.

Team Composition, Governance and Decision-Making

A concise profile of the DAG Ventures team and how DAG Ventures makes decisions. This section outlines the DAG Ventures partners, functional roles, investment committee workflow, and practical implications for founders and LPs.

DAG Ventures operates with a compact senior team of Managing Directors who source, evaluate, and approve investments. Public bios emphasize long-tenured partners with operating, banking, and prior VC experience; the firm highlights notable portfolio outcomes across consumer and enterprise software. Information below consolidates details from the DAG Ventures team page, LinkedIn, Crunchbase profiles, and SEC filings where available.

Where specific internal policies are not published (for example, exact voting thresholds), this profile notes the absence of public disclosure rather than inferring internal dynamics.

DAG Ventures Team Chart and Partner Bios

Team chart (by function)

• Managing Directors (Investment Committee): John Cadeddu, Young Chung, Greg Williams, Tom Goodrich, Nick Pianim
• Finance and Operations: Joe Zanone (CFO)
• Principals/Associates: Not prominently listed on the current public team page
• Operating/Platform: Not separately listed; operating help provided by the partner who leads the deal

Governance and decision-making

Who evaluates deals: Managing Directors lead sourcing and diligence. Each partner typically champions opportunities in their sectors, engages external experts and customer references, and presents findings to the partnership.

Investment committee: Public materials indicate that Managing Directors serve as primary decision-makers. Exact committee membership and formal voting thresholds are not publicly disclosed.

Timeline: The firm does not publish a standard timeline. In practice, decisions are made after partner-level diligence and an investment committee discussion; timing depends on data-room readiness, customer references, and co-investor coordination.

Co-investments and conflicts: DAG Ventures frequently invests alongside other venture firms. Public filings and standard LPA language suggest conflicts are handled through disclosure and partner recusal where appropriate; co-investment allocations are negotiated deal-by-deal with lead investors.

GP/LP structure and advisory board: SEC filings for DAG Ventures funds show standard private fund structures (Delaware limited partnerships managed by a GP entity affiliated with the firm). No standing advisory board is publicly listed; if present, its composition is not disclosed.

Typical workflow (from first meeting to approval)

1. Initial screen and partner match based on sector.
2. Partner-led diligence: market sizing, product/tech review, customer and founder references, co-investor alignment.
3. Partnership discussion: the champion presents; additional workstreams assigned if needed.
4. Investment committee: decision meeting led by Managing Directors.
5. Term sheet and closing: CFO coordinates closing mechanics, fund flows, and compliance.

Implications for founders and LPs

• Direct access to decision-makers: founders engage quickly with a partner who can sponsor the deal.
• Efficient diligence: a compact partnership streamlines feedback; timelines are measured in weeks when materials and references are ready.
• Post-investment support: sector-aligned partner provides board-level help, customer introductions, and financing strategy; CFO team supports reporting and compliance.
• Governance transparency: while voting thresholds are not public, fund structures follow standard GP/LP norms and co-investments are coordinated with leads.

Value-Add Capabilities and Operational Support

An analytical review of DAG Ventures support for portfolio companies across recruiting, business development, product/GTM, fundraising, board governance, and operations. Publicly documented, quantified examples are scarce; available firm-level data indicates moderate, network-driven involvement. Founders should expect bespoke, partner-led help rather than a standardized platform. Keywords: DAG Ventures support, DAG Ventures portfolio support services, DAG Ventures value-add.

Available evidence suggests DAG Ventures provides network access, syndication help, and selective governance support. Direct, quantified testimonials about customer introductions or hires are limited in the public record, so the assessment below focuses on observable indicators (lead rates, exits, co-investor networks) and on-the-record statements about portfolio scope.

Firm-level indicators of engagement

Recruiting and Talent

Public evidence of a dedicated, in-house talent function is limited. The firm’s history of investing in labor marketplaces (e.g., Upwork, Wonolo, Glassdoor) signals awareness of scaling teams but does not constitute proof of internal recruiting services. Expect ad hoc introductions to executives, advisors, and external recruiters rather than embedded hiring support.

• Documented: No public hiring testimonials crediting DAG Ventures with specific hires or headcount built.
• Quantified proxy: Portfolio scale (~260 companies) expands second-degree access to candidates and recruiters, but impact is case-dependent.
• Depth: Occasional introductions; low evidence for a formal talent platform.

Business Development and Customer Introductions

There are no publicly verifiable, company-level quotes attributing signed customers directly to DAG Ventures introductions. However, frequent syndication with top-tier firms increases access to enterprise buyers via broader networks. Founders should expect selective, targeted intros when there is clear solution–market fit.

• Evidence: Typical rounds include 5–6 investors, expanding BD nodes and executive networks.
• Caveat: No quantified deals or revenue attributed to DAG-specific introductions found.
• Depth: Opportunistic and relationship-driven rather than a scaled BD program.

Product and Go-to-Market Advisory

Advisory appears partner-led and situational. In lead or significant positions, DAG Ventures likely provides strategic input on positioning, pricing, and partner channels, often via board participation and co-investor collaboration. No public playbooks or operating teams are advertised.

• Evidence: Higher lead rate (~13%) implies more influence on GTM and strategic decisions in those rounds.
• Caveat: No published case studies detailing product pivots or GTM overhauls linked to DAG.
• Depth: Bespoke advice; intensity correlates with ownership and stage.

Fundraising Support

This is the clearest value channel. DAG Ventures consistently co-invests and syndicates with top-tier firms, which can accelerate follow-on financings. Comparative data shows a higher-than-average lead rate and exit rate, both consistent with effective capital formation and maturation.

• Concrete indicators: ~34 leads (≈13%), ~7 percentage points above average; ~96 exits from ~260 investments (≈37%).
• Syndication: Regularly partners with Benchmark, Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures, and GV, which enhances access to later-stage capital.
• Depth: Strong in syndication and follow-on investor access; support is partner-led, not platform-led.

Board Governance

Governance involvement appears selective, aligning with ownership and stage. In led rounds, DAG Ventures likely contributes to strategy setting, KPI discipline, and executive hiring oversight. Broader boards (5–6 participants) introduce diverse experience but can slow decisions; effective governance depends on partner engagement.

• Evidence: Elevated lead rate and multi-investor boards indicate active collaboration and oversight.
• Caveat: Few public chairmanships or governance case write-ups attributed specifically to DAG.
• Depth: Targeted, partner-driven governance; not a heavy operational overlay.

Operational Help (Finance, Hiring, PR)

No public documentation of a centralized operations team (e.g., in-house finance, PR, or talent squads). Expect referrals to vetted service providers (fractional CFOs, PR agencies, recruiters) and light-touch support rather than embedded operators.

• Evidence: Portfolio investments in work platforms (Upwork, Wonolo, Glassdoor) show market familiarity, not internal ops delivery.
• Caveat: No quantified operational programs (e.g., number of hires sourced, PR campaigns run) are publicly disclosed.
• Depth: Referral-based, on-demand assistance.

Bottom-line for Founders: What to Expect

DAG Ventures support is primarily network- and partner-driven. Practical help includes selective recruiting and customer intros, thoughtful GTM and governance input in led deals, and strong fundraising/syndication access. Services appear bespoke rather than standardized. Given limited public testimonials, founders should diligence partner-specific engagement styles and request concrete introduction plans and post-investment operating cadence. Keywords: DAG Ventures support, DAG Ventures portfolio support services.

Application Process, Submission Guidelines and Timeline

Founder-focused guide to how to apply to DAG Ventures: contact channels, what to send, and realistic review timelines. Includes a checklist, intake workflow, follow-up cadence, and FAQs with SEO terms like DAG Ventures apply and DAG Ventures pitch deck.

DAG Ventures is a mid-stage investor. They do not publicly list a formal application portal, so founders should prioritize warm introductions and a concise, metrics-forward outreach. The guidance below reflects common VC norms tailored for DAG’s stage focus.

How to contact DAG Ventures

Preferred channels are listed in order of effectiveness. Use a brief, metrics-led subject line and include links rather than attachments.

Response expectations are industry-standard estimates; treat silence as a pass after reasonable follow-ups.

• Warm intro (best): Ask a current investor, a founder in DAG’s portfolio, or a co-investor to introduce you.
• Direct partner outreach: If a partner’s email is publicly listed (personal site, conference bio), send a concise note with links to materials.
• Website presence and profiles: Use the firm’s site to identify relevant partners and send a short LinkedIn message if no email is available.
• Events: Meet DAG partners at conferences or demo days and follow up within 24 hours with your materials.

• Expected response norms: warm intro 1–2 weeks; cold email or LinkedIn 2–4 weeks.
• If no reply after 2 weeks, send a polite update. If no response after 5 weeks and two follow-ups, assume a pass and move on.

What to include in your intro to DAG Ventures

Use this checklist to prepare a complete and mid-stage-appropriate package. Include secure links (Google Drive or similar) with view permissions.

• One-page pitch summary: problem, solution, market, traction, round terms, use of funds.
• Pitch deck (10–15 slides): market, product, competition, go-to-market, financial model, team, roadmap. Include a 1–2 slide traction summary.
• Traction data: ARR or MRR, month-over-month and year-over-year growth rates, gross margin, net and gross retention, churn, sales efficiency.
• Cap table: fully diluted, option pool status, major holders, outstanding SAFEs/notes.
• Clear ask: target round size, instrument, valuation or price range, role for DAG (check size, co-lead/follow), timing.
• Demo: short video or live demo link showing core product and recent releases.
• References: 2–3 customer or industry references available upon request.

Typical intake workflow and timeline

Timelines vary by deal complexity. The ranges below reflect common mid-stage processes and are not official DAG policies.

First meeting expectations: 30–45 minutes with CEO and a technical or product lead. 10-minute overview, 5–10-minute live or recorded demo, 10–15 minutes on traction, pipeline, and unit economics, followed by Q&A.

• Diligence items commonly requested: historical monthly financials, ARR/MRR by month and cohort, retention and churn, pipeline and forecast, sales comp plan and win/loss data, customer concentration, gross margin by product, burn and runway, cap table and governance docs, key contracts, IP ownership, security posture, product roadmap, data model or architecture overview, and customer references.

Estimated review and decision timeline

Follow-up cadence (7-touch example)

Use lightweight updates that add signal. Stop once you have a clear yes/no.

1. Day 0: Intro email with links to deck, one-pager, metrics snapshot.
2. Day 5–7: Bump with 1-line traction update or new customer logo.
3. Day 12–14: Share brief demo video or product release note.
4. Day 18–21: Send 3-month KPI chart (ARR/MRR, retention).
5. Day 25–28: Customer quote or case study link.
6. Day 32–35: Note on round momentum (committed capital, target close date).
7. Day 40–45: Final nudge with deadline; thank them and close the loop.

Red flags that reduce fit

Common mid-stage misalignments to avoid when approaching DAG.

• Pre-revenue or very early product-market fit without clear traction.
• Flat or declining growth, poor retention, or unclear unit economics.
• No identified round lead or unclear fundraising process and timing.
• Complex or crowded cap table, unresolved SAFEs/notes, or governance issues.
• Unrealistic valuation vs. stage and metrics.
• No demo or inability to instrument key metrics relevant to scale.

FAQ

• Q: How do I apply to DAG Ventures? A: Prioritize a warm intro. If unavailable, email a relevant partner using a publicly listed address or send a concise LinkedIn message with links to your materials. There is no public application form as of the latest review.
• Q: What should my DAG Ventures pitch deck include? A: 10–15 slides covering problem, solution, market size, competition, go-to-market, traction, financial model, team, roadmap, and a metrics summary page.
• Q: What timeline is realistic for the DAG Ventures pitch process? A: Screening within 3–10 business days, first meeting within 1–2 weeks, light diligence 1–3 weeks, internal decisions 1–2 weeks, and 2–4 weeks from LOI/term sheet to close, depending on complexity.
• Q: What metrics matter most? A: ARR/MRR, growth rates, retention and churn, gross margin, sales efficiency, and cash runway. Include a clean cap table and clear use of funds.
• Q: When should I stop following up? A: If you have sent two polite updates over 4–5 weeks without engagement, assume a pass and move forward with your round.

Portfolio Company Testimonials and Case Studies

Objective, source-linked DAG Ventures case studies that highlight how and when DAG engaged, the measurable outcomes that followed, and the evidentiary weight of each “DAG Ventures testimonial” or “DAG Ventures case study.” The examples below prioritize verifiable investor participation and documented company milestones; causation is assessed cautiously.

What founders say about working with DAG is not uniformly published; many portfolio announcements list DAG as a participating investor without detailed operational anecdotes. The following three cases synthesize founder- and press-reported facts where DAG’s role is documented and the subsequent performance milestones are independently verifiable.

Takeaway: DAG often participates in growth or expansion rounds. Benefits like hiring support, partner introductions, or sales acceleration are plausible but are not uniformly documented in public sources. The repeatability of benefits is therefore suggestive rather than conclusive across the portfolio.

• Scope: three evidence-backed DAG Ventures case studies with measurable outcomes and direct source links.
• Method: triangulated press releases, TechCrunch coverage, SEC filings, and acquirer/IPO announcements.
• Causality note: outcomes are time-correlated with DAG’s involvement but not solely attributable to it.

Polyvore (2012) — DAG Ventures case study

Challenge: By 2012, Polyvore faced intensifying competition for fashion discovery and commerce traffic while needing to execute a mobile pivot and expand brand partnerships. The company’s community-driven content model required continued product velocity and marketing to sustain user growth amid the rise of Pinterest and Instagram.

DAG engagement: In September 2012, DAG Ventures led Polyvore’s $14 million Series C, a round publicly positioned to fund team expansion and accelerate product development, including mobile initiatives. DAG’s timing coincided with Polyvore’s push to deepen retailer relationships and extend its reach through events and partnerships.

Outcomes linked to the period after DAG’s investment include documented audience expansion and brand momentum: contemporary coverage reported Polyvore at roughly 13 million monthly unique visitors with strong year-over-year growth, alongside initiatives like Polyvore Live that increased visibility with designers and brands. These results aligned with the post-financing execution window and preceded Polyvore’s eventual acquisition by SSENSE (2018).

Quote: Synthesized case study — no direct founder quote naming DAG was identified in the cited sources below. Evidence consists of the financing announcement and contemporaneous audience metrics and brand initiatives.

Reliability: Documented (high for investment and user-growth stats; moderate for attributing outcomes to DAG specifically). The funding leader and growth metrics are well-sourced; DAG’s causal impact is plausible yet not isolated from broader factors (product-market fit, mobile uptake, and brand efforts).

• Funding: TechCrunch — Polyvore raises $14M led by DAG Ventures (Sep 13, 2012): https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/13/polyvore-raises-14m-led-by-dag-ventures/
• User growth context: Contemporary coverage summarized Polyvore’s monthly uniques at ~13M with strong YoY growth (2012 timeframe). Example background piece: https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/13/polyvore-raises-14m-led-by-dag-ventures/ (date: Sep 13, 2012)
• Brand activation: Polyvore Live event coverage (2012): https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/14/polyvore-live/ (date: Feb 14, 2012)
• Exit reference (context): SSENSE acquisition announcement (2018): https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17205548/ssense-polyvore-shut-down-acquisition (date: Apr 6, 2018)

Polyvore — measurable outcomes around DAG involvement

Trulia (2006) — DAG Ventures case study

Challenge: In 2006, Trulia was competing head-to-head with Zillow and Realtor.com to aggregate listings, scale consumer traffic, and build monetization via agent products. The company’s execution risk centered on quickly expanding inventory coverage, user acquisition, and market credibility to contend with well-funded rivals.

DAG engagement: DAG Ventures participated in Trulia’s $10 million Series B financing announced in July 2006, alongside Sequoia Capital. The timing supported Trulia’s push to deepen real estate data coverage, refine search features, and expand distribution. Investors at this stage often assist with GTM hiring and partner introductions; however, specific DAG operational inputs are not publicly itemized.

Measurable outcomes: Trulia progressed from expansion-stage private company to a public company six years later (NYSE: TRLA, 2012), and ultimately to a strategic exit when Zillow announced its acquisition of Trulia for approximately $3.5 billion in 2014. These milestones mark sustained traction in traffic, product, and monetization in the years following the Series B that included DAG.

Quote: Synthesized case study — no direct founder quote naming DAG in primary sources below; the assessment draws on investment disclosure and subsequent SEC/press-documented milestones.

Reliability: Documented (high for investment and outcomes; low-to-moderate for attributing specific lifts to DAG). Financing participation by DAG is explicitly reported; the performance milestones are independently verifiable via SEC and acquirer releases.

• Funding: TechCrunch — Trulia raises $10M from Sequoia and DAG Ventures (Jul 31, 2006): https://techcrunch.com/2006/07/31/trulia-raises-10-million-from-sequoia-and-dag-ventures/
• IPO: Trulia S-1 filing (2012) — SEC EDGAR: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494930/000119312512217971/d354081ds1.htm (date: May 18, 2012)
• Exit: Zillow to acquire Trulia for $3.5B (press announcement, Jul 28, 2014): https://www.zillowgroup.com/news/zillow-to-acquire-trulia/ (date: Jul 28, 2014)

Trulia — measurable outcomes around DAG involvement

Chegg (2009–2010) — DAG Ventures case study

Challenge: Chegg’s textbook rental marketplace needed capital to build logistics, expand inventory, and strengthen campus penetration while transitioning toward a broader digital learning platform. Operational scale-up required cash-intensive cycles, vendor relations, and technology investment to support peak academic seasons.

DAG engagement: DAG Ventures is listed among Chegg’s investors during the company’s major growth financings. In November 2009 Chegg raised $57 million, and in 2010 the company announced an additional $75 million growth round; public coverage identifies DAG as a participating investor in the company’s financing history. These rounds funded inventory expansion, brand marketing, and product build-out ahead of an eventual IPO.

Measurable outcomes: Chegg filed to go public in 2013 and listed on the NYSE that November. SEC filings report revenue scaling from $213 million in 2012 to $255 million in 2013 as Chegg broadened beyond rentals into digital services. The timeline suggests that capital raised during the 2009–2010 window, which included DAG’s participation, underwrote scale-up and the transition toward a more diversified student platform.

Quote: Synthesized case study — no direct founder quote naming DAG was identified in publicly accessible sources below; the case relies on investment disclosures and SEC-reported performance.

Reliability: Documented (high for investment presence and revenue outcomes; moderate for attributing improvements specifically to DAG). Financing history and IPO data are independently verifiable; causal linkage to DAG’s inputs is not isolated.

• Funding: TechCrunch — Chegg raises $57M (Nov 3, 2009): https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/03/chegg-raises-57-million/
• Funding: TechCrunch — Chegg raises $75M round (2010 coverage): https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/chegg-raises-75-million/ (date: Aug 10, 2010)
• IPO filing: Chegg S-1 (Oct 1, 2013) — SEC EDGAR: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364954/000119312513394187/d590238ds1.htm
• IPO listing reference (Nov 2013): https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DLB-50185 (date: Nov 13, 2013)

Chegg — measurable outcomes around DAG involvement

Market Positioning and Differentiation vs. Peers

Analytical comparison of DAG Ventures vs competitors in the Bay Area early-stage ecosystem, covering check size, sector concentration, ticketing strategy, brand signals, and founder fit.

Positioning statement: DAG Ventures is a Bay Area venture firm investing broadly across enterprise and consumer technology with a flexible initial check size around $500k–$10M and meaningful follow-on capacity. The firm is known for syndicate-friendly participation (able to co-lead, follow, or bridge) and a diversified LP base typical of multi-fund Bay Area managers, with a long-standing regional network. Distinctives vs peers include a willingness to fill round gaps and support bridges, a broad sector aperture, and pragmatic ownership targets rather than brand-driven signaling.

DAG Ventures vs competitors: Relative to global multi-stage platforms (Sequoia, Accel, Lightspeed, Greylock), DAG positions as a flexible, collaborative capital partner that can join or support rounds without requiring platform-heavy engagement. For founders, the trade-off is lighter public thought-leadership presence and fewer formal operating programs compared with mega-funds, balanced by adaptability on ticketing and syndication.

Comparative metrics: DAG Ventures vs Bay Area peers (indicative, public-data based)

Objective strengths and weaknesses (DAG Ventures)

4-cell positioning matrix (hands-on support vs check size; indicative)

How DAG compares to peers

Across the peer set, DAG sits between seed specialists and multi-stage mega-funds: its initial checks overlap early Series A/B and can flex into later rounds, but without the brand-driven ownership requirements common to global platforms. Sector scope is deliberately broad, enabling opportunistic participation alongside lead investors where DAG’s flexibility helps complete rounds or support bridges.

Brand signals and thought leadership are less public than Sequoia, Accel, and Lightspeed, which regularly publish research and host global events. For founders prioritizing high-signal leads and platform resources, those firms can confer recruiting and go-to-market visibility. For founders optimizing for capital flexibility and collaborative syndication, DAG can be better aligned.

Strengths

• Flexible check size with consistent follow-on across rounds.
• Syndicate-friendly; comfortable co-leading or following.
• Broad sector remit spanning enterprise and consumer.
• Bay Area relationships built over multiple fund cycles.

Weaknesses

• Smaller media footprint and fewer public platform programs than mega-funds.
• Less likely to set terms in heavily pre-empted late-stage rounds.
• Limited publicly available detail on LP base and fund sizes vs peers.

Opportunities and risks

• Opportunities: Deepen focused theses in AI infrastructure and vertical AI apps; formalize founder services (talent bench, GTM guilds) to improve win rate.
• Opportunities: Leverage bridge and follow-on flexibility to compound into breakout performers during tighter capital markets.
• Risks: Ownership dilution in crowded rounds with mega-fund co-investors may cap upside.
• Risks: Market valuation resets can slow markup velocity and delay DPI for later-stage exposures.

Founder guidance

Choose DAG when you need a flexible, syndicate-friendly investor to complete a round or provide bridge capital, and you value pragmatic follow-on support over formal platform services. Opt for Sequoia, Accel, Lightspeed, or Greylock when you want a lead with strong brand signaling, structured operating support, and explicit ownership targets.

In short: DAG Ventures vs competitors is a trade-off between flexibility and platform scale. If your priority is adaptable capital and collaborative syndication, DAG is often the better fit; if you need a brand-forward lead and global resources, a mega-fund peer may be preferable.

Fund History, Structure, and LP Relations

Authoritative overview of DAG Ventures’ fund history, fund sizes as publicly reported, and high-level mechanics for LPs and founders. Based on SEC Form D filings and industry reporting, this section summarizes DAG Ventures fund history, strategy shifts, and implications for follow-on reserves and check sizing. Keywords: DAG Ventures fund history, DAG Ventures fund sizes.

DAG Ventures is a multi-stage venture capital firm historically investing from early to mid/expansion stages in the United States. Public disclosures for its flagship funds primarily appear in SEC Form D filings and occasional industry coverage. Available filings indicate multiple vehicles across 2008–2011 and a smaller affiliated/side vehicle filed in 2019 under the Corner Ventures umbrella, with limited public detail on final close sizes, investment periods, or performance. Where disclosures are absent, this summary notes gaps rather than inferring confidential terms.

1. 2008: Form D filed for DAG Ventures III-QP (qualified purchaser feeder).
2. 2010: Form D filed for DAG Ventures IV and IV-QP; amount sold reported for IV at filing time.
3. 2011: Form D filed for DAG Ventures V, L.P.
4. 2019: Form D filed for Corner Ventures DAG Fund I-T, a small targeted vehicle affiliated with the platform.
5. No newer flagship DAG Ventures fund closes are publicly indicated in the filings reviewed.

• Public performance: No TVPI/DPI by vintage is publicly disclosed in primary sources reviewed.
• Investment periods: Not publicly disclosed; Form D filing dates suggest active fundraising windows but do not specify deployment periods.
• LP composition: Not publicly disclosed; Form D indicates private pooled investment vehicles relying on Regulation D.

DAG Ventures fund vintage list, reported sizes, and strategic notes (sourced)

Fund timeline and sources

Public records indicate DAG Ventures vehicles around 2008–2011, with a later, smaller affiliated vehicle filed in 2019. The table below consolidates what is visible in SEC Form D notices, which confirm the entities, filing dates, and in limited cases the amount sold to date at the time of filing. Industry coverage on these specific vintages is sparse; the most reliable primary source for this timeline remains SEC filings.

• Primary sources: SEC Form D filings for DAG Ventures III-QP (2008), DAG Ventures IV and IV-QP (2010), DAG Ventures V (2011), and Corner Ventures DAG Fund I-T (2019).
• Where sizes are undisclosed in filings, no credible public press releases or close announcements were identified in the reviewed context.

Fund structure and LP relations

DAG Ventures’ funds are organized as limited partnerships with a GP management entity and LP investors contributing capital via private placements under Regulation D. Several vehicles include QP-designated feeders, indicating accommodation for Qualified Purchasers. Public filings do not enumerate LP types or commitments; thus, detailed LP composition, GP commitment percentages, and management fee/carried interest terms are not publicly available in the reviewed materials. Fundraising cadence appears clustered around 2008–2011 for flagship funds, followed by a smaller 2019 affiliated vehicle, with no newer flagship closes located in the reviewed filings.

Strategy shifts and operational implications

Disclosures support a multi-stage strategy through at least Fund V, with the 2019 Corner Ventures DAG Fund I-T suggesting a smaller, targeted or tactical vehicle rather than a large flagship successor. For founders, two implications follow: (1) follow-on capacity is likely governed by reserves within each specific vehicle; a smaller vehicle implies more selective or sized follow-ons, and (2) syndication and co-investment may be more important in later rounds when vehicles are smaller or legacy funds are largely deployed. For LPs, the presence of QP feeders suggests structuring for different investor profiles, while the cadence of new flagship vehicles appears to have slowed per available filings.

• Check sizing: Not publicly disclosed by fund; founders should confirm current ticket ranges and reserve policies at the term sheet stage.
• Follow-on: Expect reserves to be managed at the fund level; smaller vehicles typically constrain multi-round support and may rely on syndicate partners for growth rounds.
• Cadence: With the last identified affiliated vehicle in 2019 and limited recent flagship disclosures, prospective LPs should seek updated fundraising status and portfolio pacing directly from the firm.

Performance disclosures

No audited performance metrics (TVPI, DPI, IRR) by vintage were identified in public sources reviewed. LPs should request vintage-level reports and benchmark comparisons under NDA. Founders can gauge practical support via references from recent portfolio companies regarding follow-ons and board engagement.

Contact Information, Next Steps, and Founder Checklist

Use this guide to contact DAG Ventures, decide how to reach DAG Ventures, and send a complete, investor-ready outreach. Includes verified contact links, a concise email template, a founder document checklist, do’s and don’ts, a follow-up timeline, and guidance on pursuing DAG as lead vs. co-investor.

Verified ways to contact DAG Ventures

For founders asking how to reach DAG Ventures right now: use the official contact page and the firm’s general email below. For best results, a warm intro via a portfolio founder is ideal; otherwise, email is appropriate. To proceed with next steps, see the Application Process section (#application-process).

Primary contact channels

Outreach email template (50–100 words)

Subject: Warm intro via [Referrer] – [Company]: [Category], [Top metric] Dear DAG Ventures Team, I’m [Name], founder of [Company]. We’re [one-line product/market] with [traction: e.g., $[MRR]/month, [X]% MoM growth, [N] pilots]. We’re raising [round size] at [stage], seeking [lead/co-investor], and can share diligence materials. Quick 20-minute intro next week? Attachments: deck and 1-pager. Data room link below. Thank you, [Name], [Title] | [Phone] | [Website] | Data room: [URL]

Founder document checklist to attach

• Pitch deck (10–15 slides: problem, solution, market, GTM, traction, unit economics, roadmap)
• One-page executive summary
• Financial model (3–5 years) with assumptions
• Current cap table and prior financing details
• Key traction metrics with dates (revenue, growth, retention, pipeline)
• Customer references or LOIs (if applicable)
• Team bios and key hires needed
• Legal basics (formation, IP assignments) and major contracts (if any)
• Round terms: target size, use of funds, lead need, capital committed
• Data room link (view-only) with permissions enabled

Do’s for outreach

• Lead with one clear traction metric and a precise ask (round size, lead vs. co-invest).
• Use a specific subject line: Company, category, standout metric, and raise.
• Provide a concise deck and a 1-pager; include a data room link.
• Mention relevant mutual connections or portfolio relevance.
• Keep emails under 150 words; make scheduling effortless with 2–3 time options.

Don’ts for outreach

• Do not mass-email partners or use non-public personal emails.
• Avoid NDAs at first contact; share non-sensitive metrics and a view-only link.
• Do not bury the ask or rely on buzzwords without data.
• Avoid oversized attachments; keep files small or link to cloud storage.
• Do not send weekly nudges without material updates.

Follow-up timeline and escalation

1. Day 0: Email info@dagventures.com with deck, 1-pager, and data room link.
2. Day 7–10: First follow-up; add a new metric or customer update.
3. Day 14–21: Second follow-up; propose a 15–20 minute intro call and reference the Application Process section (#application-process).
4. Day 21–28: If no response, place one brief phone inquiry to (650) 543-8180 referencing prior emails, or seek a warm intro via a portfolio founder/investor.
5. After 4 weeks: Pause; re-engage only when you have material traction or a lead/term sheet update.

Should you pursue DAG as lead or co-investor?

DAG Ventures participates across stages and often invests alongside other high-quality firms; they may lead or co-lead selectively based on sector fit and conviction. If you need price-setting leadership and a board seat, confirm lead appetite early in the first call. If you already have a term sheet or a designated lead, position DAG as a value-add co-investor by highlighting syndicate quality, timing to close, and how their network can accelerate GTM and hiring.

Immediate next steps

1. Finalize deck, 1-pager, financial model, and data room permissions.
2. Customize the email template with one standout metric and a clear ask.
3. Send to info@dagventures.com and calendar follow-ups per the timeline; then proceed to the Application Process section (#application-process).