Bradley Tusk says he makes more money with ‘equity-for-services’ than he did as a traditional VC

Tech Crunch - Mar 26th, 2025

Bradley Tusk, co-founder of Tusk Venture Partners, declared that the traditional venture capital (VC) model is dead, citing a lack of returns to limited partners (LPs) over the last four years. Tusk attributes the decline in VC activity to high-interest rates, reduced startup valuations, and stalled IPO and M&A transactions. In response, Tusk is moving away from the traditional VC model and embracing an 'equity-for-services' approach, where he accepts equity in startups in exchange for his expertise in regulatory navigation and legislative communications. This strategy is reminiscent of his early work with Uber, where he was compensated with equity for political consulting services.

Tusk's shift reflects broader frustrations within the VC community regarding economic policies from the Trump administration, including trade wars and the dismantling of federal agencies, which have stifled expected growth in the sector. By focusing on his strengths in regulatory frameworks and political consulting, Tusk aims to leverage his expertise for equity stakes, which he believes offer a more lucrative and fulfilling path than traditional VC fundraising. This move underscores a potential trend of VCs seeking alternative models amidst a challenging economic landscape, emphasizing the need for adaptability in the face of evolving market conditions.

Trump Administration Venture Capital Uber Economic Policy Bradley Tusk Tusk Venture Partners Equity For Services Startup Valuations Regulatory Strategy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-structured and clear narrative about Bradley Tusk's transition from traditional venture capital to an equity-for-services model. It effectively highlights the challenges facing the VC industry and Tusk's innovative approach to navigating these obstacles. The piece is timely and relevant, addressing ongoing economic and regulatory issues that impact the broader business landscape. However, the article could benefit from incorporating a wider range of perspectives and sources to enhance its balance and source quality. Additionally, more detailed analysis of the financial and political claims would strengthen its accuracy and transparency. Overall, the story is informative and engaging, offering valuable insights into the evolving nature of venture capital and business strategy.

Accuracy

The story's accuracy is generally strong, with most claims aligning with known facts about Bradley Tusk and the venture capital industry. Tusk's role as co-founder and managing partner at Tusk Venture Partners is accurate, as is his history with Uber, where he accepted equity in exchange for services. The article correctly identifies the challenges faced by the VC industry, such as higher interest rates and decreased liquidity, which are well-documented issues. However, the claim about Tusk making more money through the equity-for-services model than traditional VC could benefit from more detailed financial comparisons to fully verify this assertion. Additionally, the impact of political factors, such as Trump's policies, on the VC landscape is a complex area that requires more nuanced exploration to ensure complete accuracy.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of Bradley Tusk's career shift from traditional venture capital to an equity-for-services model. It highlights both the challenges faced by the VC industry and the potential advantages of Tusk's new approach. However, the piece could benefit from including perspectives from other industry experts or stakeholders to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the broader implications of Tusk's claims. While Tusk's perspective is well-represented, additional viewpoints could help readers understand the potential downsides or criticisms of the equity-for-services model.

Clarity

The article is well-written and structured, providing a clear narrative of Bradley Tusk's career transition and the factors influencing it. The language is straightforward, and the progression from discussing the challenges in the VC industry to Tusk's new business model is logical and easy to follow. However, some complex topics, such as the financial intricacies of the equity-for-services model, could be explained in more detail to enhance reader comprehension. Overall, the article succeeds in conveying its main points in a clear and engaging manner.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements from Bradley Tusk, which are credible given his expertise and experience in the industry. However, the reliance on a single source limits the depth of the analysis. Incorporating insights from other venture capitalists, economists, or industry analysts would enhance the reliability and authority of the reporting. The article would benefit from a broader range of sources to corroborate Tusk's claims and provide a more nuanced perspective on the state of the venture capital industry.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its main source, Bradley Tusk, and clearly outlines his background and motivations for shifting to an equity-for-services model. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind some claims, such as the financial benefits of this model compared to traditional VC. Additionally, while the article mentions political factors affecting the VC landscape, it does not provide in-depth analysis or evidence to support these assertions. Greater transparency in these areas would strengthen the article's credibility.