I am in this space. Most funds don’t have “fund” in the name. (And VCs have, anecdotally, tended to use Arabic over Roman numerals, the latter being the domain of PE and RE.) Also, there is multiple counting with this method because you will have collections of GPs, funds, SPVs, co-invests, feeders, et cetera, all with the same fund + [Roman numeral] format.

What you may be measuring is the formation of naïve funds. And yes, anecdotally, we saw a lot of novice managers emerge in '21 and '22. (Many of whom are now winding down.) But that doesn't mean they're concentrated in VC. In my experience, RE and--novelly--crypto, lead the charge.

If you want to prosecute this question, better data will be found in Pitchbook and the VCFA.

Agree with your broader point but have the stupidest point to persecute (arabic vs roman numerals) -- anecdotally seeing a lot of our investor base raise their next funds (all VCs) they have all been roman numeral named for some reason. Is this an east coast vs west coast thing or is it just a luck of the draw thing