Crypto is the one sector where the instrument itself is up for negotiation. Some funds buy equity, some buy tokens, many buy both through structures with warrants, lockups and unlock schedules that have no equivalent elsewhere in venture. Understanding which of those a firm does, before the first meeting, matters more here than in any other sector on this site.
Reviewed Full-year 2025
These are fintech figures, because that is the category most crypto companies are counted within, and the crypto-specific detail inside them is the striking part. The four largest fintech rounds of 2025 were all crypto-native: Polymarket and Binance at $2bn each, Kalshi at $1bn on an $11bn valuation, and Kraken at $800m on a $20bn valuation. Meanwhile deal count across fintech fell 23%. Very large cheques went to a small number of mature crypto businesses while the number of companies funded shrank.
A fund tagged "crypto" sits in one of four columns, and they differ on the thing that matters most here: what they actually buy. Ask early, because a token fund and an equity fund are running different businesses.
| Protocols & tokens | Infrastructure & tooling | Consumer & applications | Regulated digital finance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical entry stage | Pre-launch, sometimes pre-company | Seed to Series A | Pre-seed to seed | Seed to Series A |
| Cheque shape | Token warrants, SAFTs, or equity plus tokens | Ordinary equity | Equity, sometimes with a token side letter | Equity, with regulatory capital planned |
| Wants to see | Credible token design and real on-chain usage | Developer adoption and integrations | Retention that survives the incentive ending | Licences, custody and an institutional buyer |
| Time to revenue | Protocol revenue can precede any company revenue | 12-24 months | 12-24 months | 18-36 months |
| Biggest risk they underwrite | Token price becoming the product | A chain or client absorbing the layer | Users who leave when rewards stop | Regulatory change in a core market |
| Who else must be in the round | Funds that can hold and stake tokens | A foundation or chain ecosystem fund | Nobody in particular | An investor comfortable with regulated entities |
Crypto investors we hold in the Causo catalogue, grouped by the cheque they actually write. Open any of them to see the partners, the stage and the recent deals. This is not every crypto investor in the market, and no catalogue is.
Firms whose entire mandate is crypto, most of them structured to hold tokens as well as equity.
Firms writing the first cheque, often before a token exists.
Firms that lead larger rounds, including generalists with long crypto records.
Balance sheets attached to exchanges and platforms, which bring distribution and listings as well as capital.
The gates that are specific to this sector, and that a generalist fundraising guide will not tell you about.
One worked example of what reading those sources produces, from the Causo catalogue with the identity removed.
A fund structured to hold tokens as well as equity, with a record concentrated in protocol infrastructure rather than consumer applications. Governance participation appears alongside the investments, which indicates active involvement after the cheque rather than passive holding.
Crypto-native firms include Pantera Capital, Polychain Capital, Dragonfly Capital, Multicoin Capital, Framework Ventures, Blockchain Capital, Variant Fund, Electric Capital and Haun Ventures. Union Square Ventures is the most prominent generalist with a long crypto record. Exchange-affiliated investors include Coinbase Ventures and Binance Labs, now YZi Labs.
Crypto is usually counted inside fintech, which raised $51.8bn globally in 2025 across 3,457 deals. What stands out is that the four largest fintech rounds of the year were all crypto-native: $2bn each to Polymarket and Binance, $1bn to Kalshi at an $11bn valuation, and $800m to Kraken at a $20bn valuation.
Both, and which one is the first question to settle. Many crypto-native funds are structured to hold tokens and will take equity with a token warrant attached. Generalist funds are often restricted to equity by their own LP agreements. Asking early avoids weeks of conversation with a firm that structurally cannot do your deal.
No, and inventing one to seem native is counterproductive. Plenty of funded crypto companies are ordinary equity businesses: exchanges, custody providers, compliance tooling and infrastructure. A token should exist because the product needs one, and investors are well practised at spotting the ones that do not.
On-chain usage that is not bought with incentives, a technical team that can ship in public, a token design with a real function if there is a token, and a clear-eyed account of the regulatory position. Retention after emissions taper is the single most persuasive metric.
On-chain activity and recent announcements, not the website. Crypto funding follows the market cycle sharply, and a number of firms went quiet after the last drawdown without changing their public positioning. Funds that led rounds through the downturn are a different proposition from those that reappeared with the upswing.