Something unusual has started happening in venture capital.

Two large venture funds invest in the same startup.
In the same round.
Buying the same shares.

Thanks for reading En Verite! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

But one of them pays half the price.

This isn’t a rare edge case anymore. It’s becoming a common tactic in hot sectors like AI. See, this structure allows startups to announce massive valuations after quietly selling large portions of the round at much lower prices.

Founders benefit.
Lead investors benefit.

But it creates a dangerous illusion for everyone else in the market.

Especially LPs.

One round, two prices

Traditionally a venture round had a single price per share. With the lead investor negotiating the valuation and the rest following. Everyone bought roughly the same security at the same price.

Recently that changed.

Some startups have started selling equity at multiple valuations within the same round.

The lead investor buys a large allocation at a lower price. Then additional investors are brought in at a higher valuation. The higher number becomes the headline.

The company announces the bigger valuation.

Everyone celebrates.

But economically, investors in the same round may have paid dramatically different prices for the same company.

Aaru’s Series A

AI startup Aaru raised a Series A that included shares sold at two different valuations. According to reporting, a large portion of the round was priced around $450 million. But later on other investors bought in at roughly $1 billion.

Same round. Same company. Same equity.

Two very different prices.

The billion-dollar valuation became the headline, effectively allowing the company to present itself as a unicorn overnight.

The lower price largely disappeared from the narrative.

From a founder’s perspective, the benefits are obvious. A higher headline valuation attracts talent, customers, and more capital. It can scare away competitors from even considering entering the market. And in competitive markets like AI, perception matters.

But the structure also reveals something about how venture incentives work.

Why other investors still pile in

You might expect investors to push back on unequal pricing.

In practice, many still join the round.

The reason is simple: signaling.

Once a major venture firm leads a deal, the presence of that firm becomes a powerful signal to the rest of the market. If a well-known megafund is on the cap table, other investors assume the company has passed serious diligence.

There is another unspoken assumption.

If the company struggles later, the megafund might step in again.

In venture, continued support from the lead investor can determine whether a company survives the next funding cycle. Smaller funds often see participation alongside a top-tier firm as a form of insurance.

So they accept the higher price.

The ability to say they invested early in a hot company often matters more than the exact entry valuation.

The quiet consequence

The real impact of these structures shows up later. Early-stage venture returns are extremely sensitive to entry price. An investor who buys at a $50 million valuation and exits at $5 billion can generate extraordinary returns. An investor who enters at $1 billion may see a much smaller outcome, even with a successful exit.

Ownership dilution compounds the problem. Without strong pro rata rights, early investors often see their stake shrink with each new round.

So an investor who believes they were early may discover they own a small position purchased at a very high price.

Even good outcomes can turn into mediocre returns.

Who actually benefits

Follow the incentives.

Founders benefit because higher headline valuations create momentum.

Lead investors benefit because they secure large allocations at the lower price while still allowing the company to market a massive valuation.

Late investors get access to a coveted deal and the ability to associate themselves with a fast-rising startup.

But the party funding the entire system often ends up with the weakest position.

The LPs.

Limited partners provide the capital that venture funds deploy. Pension funds, endowments, and family offices rely on venture firms to generate outsized returns. When an emerging manager invests in the higher-priced portion of a split round, they may tell LPs they were an early investor in a unicorn. Technically that may be true. Economically, it might not be.

If another fund bought a large block at half the price in the same round, the economics of “being early” look very different.

The structure effectively manufactures early investors.

Why this is spreading

This tactic is emerging because of two powerful forces in the venture market.

First, intense competition for the most promising AI startups. When companies have more investor demand than they need, they gain the leverage to structure rounds creatively.

Second, venture funds themselves have grown enormous. Multi-billion dollar funds need meaningful ownership stakes to generate strong returns. Buying a large allocation at a lower tier while allowing a higher headline valuation solves that problem.

It is financial engineering adapted to private markets.

And as long as capital remains abundant, the incentives support it.

The real lesson

None of this means the underlying companies are weak. Some will become category leaders. But the financing structure reveals a deeper shift in venture markets. Valuation is no longer purely a pricing mechanism. It has become a signaling mechanism. The headline number helps attract talent, customers, and additional capital. In that sense, it functions as a marketing asset for the company.

The problem is that once valuation becomes part of the marketing strategy, traditional underwriting discipline starts to weaken.

If investors are comfortable buying identical shares at very different prices in the same round, the price is no longer the output of rigorous analysis. It becomes a narrative tool.

For LPs, this should raise serious questions.

Venture returns depend heavily on entry price. When that price is shaped by optics rather than economics, the risk profile of the investment changes in ways that are easy to overlook in the moment.

Cycles in venture rarely end because companies stop building interesting technology.

They end when the market stops caring how much it pays for it.