Venture capital has ballooned into a massive asset class, with firms like Andreessen Horowitz managing $90 billion. Their recent $15 billion fund represents a significant chunk of U.S. venture dollars. However, there's growing concern about what these firms plan to do with this capital. Historically, venture capital focused on enterprise software, funding well-established companies. Now, there's a shift towards financializing every product to meet aggressive return targets, leading to a cycle of tweaking strategies rather than making fundamental changes. A key theme is the notion of liquidity. In a market with little real liquidity, there's a tendency to create grand narratives about future payoffs, likening them to millenarian beliefs. The idea is that a significant event, like a geopolitical crisis or technological breakthrough, will result in massive returns for investors. This thinking parallels the American Dynamism thesis, which assumes a looming conflict will boost domestic tech companies. While the timeline and mechanisms are vague, the conviction among investors remains high. Critics argue these investment theses lack coherence, resembling articles of faith rather than sound financial strategies. The industry has transformed over the past two decades, evolving to create a spectrum of liquidity products. Continuation vehicles and secondary markets have emerged, allowing investors to manage their positions more flexibly. This evolution demands a new base of limited partners willing to engage with these complex structures. The venture capital landscape is changing, but the underlying faith in extraordinary returns continues to drive decision-making.