For the fireside chat at SpinLab Investors Day, moderated by Gwendolyn Schröter, industry leaders gathered for a fireside chat to debate one of the most pressing questions in private equity: Is the traditional fund structure – a 10-year fund lifespan with up to two single-year extensions (10+1+1) and a 2% management fee with 20% performance carry (2/20) – still viable?
The fireside chat examined whether Europe is ready to shift its model. The chat included:
Dr. Andreas Schenk (Partner at Alstin Capital, focusing on B2B software)
Jan Miczaika (Partner at HV Capital, currently managing their 10th fund generation)
Robin Neff (Investment Manager at World Fund, a leading climate-tech firm)
David Polach (Partner at J & T. Ventures, an active early-stage investor in Central and Eastern Europe)
The core challenge facing the standard 10-year model is the growing mismatch between investor expectations and the time it actually takes a startup to mature. Although standard funds promise returns within a decade, the time it takes a startup to grow from inception to a significant initial public offering (IPO) has increased from 4–6 years to 13–15 years.
David Polach highlighted that this creates an immediate issue for older or retail investors:
"We have private individuals who say, 'We love what you do, but I am 70 years old. I might be dead in 10 years, and my kids don't want to inherit an illiquid asset.' A 10-year lockup is simply too long for them. They need options to step out and get liquidity after 4 or 5 years."
Robin Neff noted that during the tech boom of 2020–2021, many first-time European investors signed up with shorter time horizons in mind. In contrast, institutional investors in the US are much more accustomed to the long-term horizons required to build foundational companies.
Jan Miczaika pointed out that this liquidity issue is not exclusive to venture capital, but rather a broader macroeconomic reality shaped by years of substantial cash investments in global markets. While high valuations (such as those of major AI firms) may look exciting on paper, they do not help investors pay their bills or return cash to their own backers.
Dr. Andreas Schenk observed that this liquidity squeeze hits various funds differently:
Pre-Seed & Seed Funds: They are experiencing longer timelines for companies trying to bridge the gap to a Series A round.
B2B Software Funds: Startups working in AI are growing incredibly fast, requiring less starting capital to scale their revenue.
Deep Tech & Climate Tech Funds: These companies require massive technology development, often extending past the standard 10-year horizon.
However, Neff countered the idea that all hardware or deep-tech companies outgrow standard funds, citing recent multi-billion-dollar US exits that went from founding to liquidity well within a 10-year window. The key is avoiding late-stage long-shot bets and finding the true "outliers."
To address the lack of exits, Miczaika argued that venture teams need a major mindset shift away from an obsession with closing new deals and toward actively unlocking liquidity. At HV Capital, the team solved this by launching a continuation fund to roll older stakes into special vehicles, and even offered a full fund secondary option to let investors cash out early. Surprisingly, when given the choice, few investors actually took the cash, proving that offering the option for liquidity is sometimes enough to keep investors happy.
Schenk agreed that early secondary sales provide a huge psychological boost, as returning early cash to investors builds immense trust and massively aids future fundraising, even if it means leaving future upside on the table.
While US funds sometimes push performance fees up to 30%, the panel agreed that Europe remains deeply attached to the standard 2/20 model because it is predictable.
The Market Standard: Schenk and Neff both noted that sticking to what investors know makes fundraising much easier. Deviating from 2/20 requires a track record held only by top-tier firms.
Fees as a Loan: Miczaika reminded the room that the 2% management fee is essentially a loan from investors that must be paid back before managers ever taste performance profits. He suggested that fund managers confident in their results should pull less than the full 2% to enter profits quicker.
Fund Size Matters: For micro-funds, a 2% fee is barely enough to pay staff. For massive funds, 2% yields a huge volume of cash, enabling them to hire specialized support roles like internal tech leads to assist their portfolio.
To close out the panel, the speakers were asked what creative solutions they would design on a blank piece of paper to revolutionize the industry:
Flexible Timelines for Winners: Schenk argued for giving trusted managers the flexibility to hold onto big winners past the standard 12-year limit. He highlighted a portfolio company, Blacklane, which took 12 years to mature before a highly successful exit to Uber.
The Biotech Financing Model: Neff suggested that hardware and climate-tech funds should mirror the biotech industry, using highly structured financing rounds tied to clear, undeniable technological "value inflection points" rather than standard software metrics.
Venture "Bonds": Polach shared an unusual trend from the Czech Republic, where retail investors shy away from equity but tend to support the corporate bonds issued by tech unicorns. He joked about a hypothetical venture fund structure built entirely on debt and fixed returns rather than equity.
While options like evergreen funds or venture bonds remain rare in Europe, the consensus was clear: the 10+1+1 and 2/20 framework is still alive, but fund managers must become much more creative and bold with secondaries, co-investments, and continuation funds to keep their investors liquid.