Table of Contents Introduction: On the Threshold of a New Era The world is at a critical point of transformation that will define the shape of humanity for decades to come. By 2035, global civilization will experience changes comparable in scale to the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, but unfolding with unprecedented speed. The convergence of technological breakthroughs, demographic shifts, geopolitical realignment, and the climate crisis creates a unique configuration of challenges and opportunities. This article is based on interdisciplinary analysis of academic research, forecasts of leading international organizations (UN, OECD, World Economic Forum, McKinsey Global Institute), and big data on trends across various sectors. Our aim is not to predict a deterministic future, but to identify structural patterns and development scenarios that can help us understand the direction of global civilization. Demographic Revolution: An Aging North, a Young South Global Demographic Trends The world’s population will reach approximately 8.9 billion by 2035, but behind this figure lies a dramatic transformation of age structure and geographic distribution. An aging developed world. High-income countries are experiencing a demographic crisis of historic proportions. By 2035, the number of people over 65 will increase by 36%—from 857 million in 2025 to 1.2 billion. In Europe, around 30% of the population will be over 60; in Japan, more than 35%. China will face the most dramatic scenario: its population will shrink from 1.4 billion in 2025 to 1.3 billion by 2035, with a possible decline to 600 million by 2100. A youthful Global South. Meanwhile, Africa and parts of Asia are undergoing a demographic explosion. By 2035, Africa’s population will reach 1.7–1.8 billion, and by 2050 will reach 2.2 billion, or 24% of the global population (compared with 9% in 1950). India has already surpassed China as the world’s most populous country and by 2035 will have around 1.5–1.6 billion people. Socio-Economic Implications Dependency ratios and economic strain. Aging populations in developed countries will put immense pressure on welfare systems. Europe’s dependency ratio (working-age people to retirees) will fall from 4:1 in 2015 to around 2.5–3:1 by 2035. This will require radical reforms to pensions, healthcare, and eldercare systems. Urbanization and megacities. By 2035, 68% of the world’s population will live in cities. The number of megacities (over 10 million residents) will rise from 34 in 2024 to 48 in 2035. Fourteen will exceed 20 million inhabitants, with Delhi at the top (43 million) and Tokyo second (36 million). Most of these megacities will be in developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia. Lagos, Kinshasa, and Dar es Salaam are projected to become the world’s largest urban agglomerations by the end of the 21st century, creating unprecedented challenges for infrastructure, resource management, and social stability. Technological Revolution: Artificial Intelligence and Automation AI and the Transformation of Work Artificial intelligence will radically reshape the nature of work by 2035. According to various studies, 30–60% of today’s jobs will be significantly transformed or automated. The automation paradox. AI will mostly complement rather than replace human labor, especially in high-skill professions. However, routine administrative and clerical roles face high automation risk. Analysis shows that up to 60% of administrative tasks may be automated by the 2030s. A new geography of opportunity. Jobs requiring creativity, social interaction, leadership, and expertise will be less vulnerable. Demand will grow sharply for AI/ML specialists (projected 57% growth by 2030), renewable energy engineers, data analysts, and AI ethicists. Productivity and inequality. AI may raise GDP by 1.5% by 2035, nearly 3% by 2055, and 3.7% by 2075. The peak of its productivity impact will come in the early 2030s (adding 0.2 percentage points annually in 2032), before stabilizing. A critical risk is deepening inequality, as AI may widen the gap between high- and low-skilled workers. Education 2035: Personalization and Lifelong Learning By 2035, education systems will undergo fundamental transformation. AI-driven personalization. Ninety-five percent of knowledge assessment will become continuous and competency-based, rather than exam-based. AI tutors will provide 24/7 personalized support to two billion students worldwide. Neuroadaptive interfaces will optimize learning by analyzing brain activity. Lifelong learning as the norm. The concept of “one education for life” will be obsolete. AI career-navigation systems will recommend training opportunities based on labor market trends, personal aspirations, and evolving skill demands. Geopolitical Realignment: A Multipolar World From Hegemony to Multiple Centers of Power By 2035, the unipolar order dominated by the United States will be replaced by a multipolar system. Surveys suggest that 73% of global strategy experts expect a multipolar world by 2034, while only 44% foresee a purely bipolar U.S.–China rivalry. New power centers. China, India, and regional groupings (BRICS+, SCO) are strengthening their influence. Power is also being redistributed to non-state actors such as transnational corporations, megacities, and technology platforms. Fragmentation of governance. Multilateral institutions (UN, WTO) face a legitimacy crisis. In a worst-case scenario, the UN General Assembly could suspend operations by 2035 due to lack of member-state funding, while the WTO may lose relevance. In a best-case scenario, these institutions adapt to multipolarity through decentralization and inclusion of new actors. Tech Rivalries and Digital Sovereignty Decoupled ecosystems. The U.S. and China are building parallel technological ecosystems, including separate 5G/6G networks, competing AI standards, alternative payment systems, and duplicate semiconductor supply chains. Europe is attempting a “third way” through strict regulation (AI Act, GDPR). Data geopolitics. Data is becoming the new oil, and control over data flows is a matter of national security. By 2035, digital protectionism will be the norm: countries will require data localization and restrict cross-border flows. Climate Crisis and the Energy Transition Warming Trajectories and Implications The planet remains on a trajectory toward 2.2–2.4°C of warming by 2100, and some critical thresholds may be exceeded as early as 2035. Rising global temperatures are already driving ecosystem collapse, worsening extreme weather, and disrupting food and energy security across continents. Russia as a microcosm.Russia is both a major emitter and a key climate regulator due to its vast boreal forests, permafrost zones, and energy exports. In August 2025, President Vladimir Putin signed

Introduction: Why We Keep Talking About Money I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked the same question by founders over the last 15 years:“Aleksei, how do I raise money for my startup?” It doesn’t matter where I am — a co-working space in Moscow, a tech park in Kazan, a coffee shop in Berlin, or a conference in Singapore — the question always comes. And my answer is usually the same: funding is not about the money, it’s about trust. Money, at the end of the day, is just paper (or more often, digits on a bank screen). Trust is the real currency of venture capital. If an investor doesn’t trust your team, your story, or your numbers, no amount of slides or enthusiasm will help. In Russia and the CIS, the journey is harder. Our ecosystem is younger, our exits fewer, and our risks greater. But our talent? Our engineers, our scientists, our founders? They are world-class. I’ve seen teams here that can match — or even out-innovate — their peers in Silicon Valley. The question is not: “Do CIS founders have the talent?” The question is: “How do they convince the world to back them?” That’s the journey we’re about to take in this article: a guided, interactive review of the startup funding landscape — Russia, the CIS, and beyond — told not from theory, but from my own experience as an investor, mentor, and Managing Partner of iVenturer Foundation. Chapter 1: The Global Landscape – Russia vs. U.S. vs. Asia Let’s set the stage with a simple comparison. The U.S. — Silicon Valley & Beyond Average seed round: $2–3 million. Valuations: aggressive, often based on potential rather than traction. Ecosystem: highly networked, liquid, with deep pools of angels, VCs, and corporates. Culture: failure is accepted. If your startup dies, you wear it like a badge. Asia — Speed and Scale Average seed round: $500k–$1.5 million (varies widely by region). Valuations: disciplined, sometimes lower than the U.S. but growing fast. Ecosystem: hyper-competitive, government-driven in some regions (e.g., Singapore, China). Culture: scale fast or get eaten. Partnerships with corporates are critical. Russia & CIS — Cautious Growth Average seed round: $200–500k. Valuations: conservative. Investors want proof, not just potential. Ecosystem: fragmented, with strong government influence (Skolkovo, IIDF). Culture: investors are skeptical, exits are fewer, compliance matters. The difference? In the U.S., investors bet on vision. In Asia, they bet on speed. In Russia/CIS, they bet on survival. This means that if you are a CIS founder trying to raise abroad, you must translate your story into the language investors understand. For Americans: big vision, big market, bold ambition. For Asians: clear scalability and operational discipline. For CIS: resilience, compliance, and smart risk management. Chapter 2: The Founder’s Dilemma A founder’s life often feels like standing at the edge of a cliff, asking strangers to help you build a bridge across. When I mentor founders, I ask one blunt question:“Why should anyone trust you with their money?” It forces a pause. Because many assume that having a great idea is enough. It isn’t. Investors look for signals, not promises. And the five universal signals are: Team. Do you and your co-founders complement each other? Lone founders rarely raise big. Traction. Do you have paying customers, or at least active pilots? Even a handful matters. Defensibility. Why won’t someone bigger crush you? Is there IP, data, or network effects? Unit Economics. Does the math make sense? Even if small, is your CAC/LTV ratio positive? Risk Awareness. Do you see your blind spots? Investors forgive risk — but not denial. I once sat with a deep-tech founder in Moscow. Brilliant biochemist. Nobel-level intellect. But when I asked him about risks, he replied: “That’s why I need investors — to figure those out for me.”Deal died on the spot. Not because of the science, but because no investor wants to pay to clean up your blind spots. Chapter 3: Instruments of Capital Here’s your fundraising toolbox, simplified: Pre-seed: Angels, family, accelerators. Small checks, but critical validation Seed: Convertible notes, SAFEs, small VCs. This is where your first real traction is tested. Series A/B: Institutional VCs, corporates. Expect heavy due diligence. Growth: Private equity, sovereign funds, international investors.   Trade-offs are everywhere: Convertible notes/SAFEs: quick, simple, but dilution risk later. Grants: non-dilutive but bureaucratic. Strategic investors: open doors, but may lock you in. At iVenturer, we once worked with a SaaS startup that turned down a local strategic investor because the term sheet gave the corporate too much control. Painful choice at the time — but two years later, the company raised 5x the valuation from an international VC. Lesson? Short-term money is easy. Long-term alignment is priceless. Chapter 4: The Art of Storytelling Numbers alone don’t raise capital. Stories do. A pitch deck is not a financial document. It’s a narrative. Investors must feel pulled into your story. Golden Rule: If your grandmother can’t explain your startup in three sentences, your story isn’t ready. At iVenturer, I coach founders to simplify. Less jargon, more clarity. Less “disruption,” more “here’s the problem, here’s why it matters, here’s why we’re the best team to solve it.” Chapter 5: The CIS Challenge Let’s face reality: raising money in CIS comes with hurdles. Currency volatility. Investors fear ruble returns shrinking against the dollar. Sanctions and perception. Even if not directly impacted, optics matter. Regulation. Laws change fast, especially around tech and finance. Exit scarcity. Few IPOs, fewer local acquirers. Solution? Structure globally. Most CIS startups raising abroad set up holding companies in Cyprus, Estonia, Singapore, or Delaware. Operations stay local, governance goes global. This dual structure sends the signal: “We play by global rules.” Chapter 6: Life After the Money Here’s the irony: most founders think raising money is the finish line. It’s not. It’s the starting line of the real race. Investors don’t just give you money and disappear. They expect: Regular reporting (monthly or quarterly). Transparency when things go wrong. Milestones

Introduction: The Math of Rejection—Why 99% of Ideas Are Systemically Doomed Venture Capital (VC) is a closed world where success is measured by the asymmetry of risk and reward. If 99% of startups face investor rejection , this does not reflect a mass shortage of good ideas. It reflects a rigid, unforgiving VC economic model that acts as a giant filter, automatically discarding projects that do not align with its mandate, regardless of their viability as a traditional small business.    The VC Systemic Requirement: Investing in Asymmetry Venture funds operate on a principle fundamentally different from traditional investing. They are not seeking stable, moderate returns. A fund that raises 100 million and invests in 20 startups expects 75% of those companies will never return the capital invested, a harsh but realistic statistic. Therefore, for the fund as a whole to deliver a profit (typically a 3x or greater return), one or two “unicorns” (companies valued over 1 billion) must account for the return of the entire fund and its profit.    This model imposes a critical Systemic Requirement: the project must have the potential for exponential, not linear, growth, with the goal of becoming a global market leader. If even a small market share cannot generate an attractive return sufficient to achieve this multi-fold return, the project is deemed unfit for VC funding.  The Mandate Fit Filter: The Primary Reason for Rejection The most common reason for rejection is not that the idea is poor, but that it does not fit the VC model. Early-stage investors, reviewing hundreds of pitches, first apply the Mandate Filter:    Stage and Sector: The founder must ensure they align with the stage (Pre-Seed/Seed) and sector the fund invests in. Pitching a Pre-Seed startup to a Growth Fund is a waste of time.    Total Addressable Market (TAM): If the Total Addressable Market (TAM) is not large enough to potentially deliver a 100x return upon capturing a dominant share, the project is automatically eliminated. In this chain of cause and effect, a good idea combined with a too-small market (TAM) for the required exponential return results in the project being labeled “Not Fundable”. Key Takeaway: A lack of understanding of the venture capitalist’s mandate is the first and most fatal strategic mistake. Many founders waste months meeting VCs when their business model (though potentially profitable) requires angel investment, grants, or bootstrapping, because it is not exponential. Five Pillars of Due Diligence (DD Pillars): Standard Early-Stage Failure Points Venture investors evaluate startups based on five interconnected pillars. Failure in even one of these, especially at the early stage where risk is extremely high, can lead to immediate rejection. At the Pre-Seed and Seed stages, Due Diligence primarily focuses on the team, the market opportunity, and the core idea.       Pillar 1: The Founding Team—The Highest Risk In the early stages, investing is fundamentally a bet on people. Investors emphasize the team’s Ability to Execute, as the product and market will likely change (Pivot), but the quality of the team must remain constant. Assessing Competencies and Commitment Investors meticulously examine the founders’ professional and educational backgrounds, their relevant skills, and industry experience. Commitment is critical: the investor looks for evidence of enthusiasm, passion, and, most importantly, full-time dedication to the project.      Team-Related Red Flags A Poor Team: A good idea with a weak team is virtually guaranteed to fail. A weak team will inevitably kill even the strongest concept.      Lack of a Leader or Technical Core: The team must have a clear, expressive leader. In a technology startup, the absence of a co-founder with deep technical expertise (CTO) or a lead developer is a critical flaw, as the investor lacks confidence in the internal ability to build a product quickly and effectively.      Co-Founder Conflict or Misalignment: Co-founders must be more than just compatible; they must be fully aligned on expectations, long-term vision, and role distribution. Tension between founders or a lack of “Sportsmanship” toward each other or external partners is a strong behavioral red flag      Pillar 2: Market and Problem (Market Opportunity) The market must be large enough to justify the exponential VC bet. However, simply naming a large TAM is insufficient; you must prove you are solving a genuinely acute problem.     From “Nice-to-Have” to “Must-Have” The product must solve what investors often call a “hair on fire problem,” not just something “mildly agitating”. Investors seek projects that make the target audience’s (TA) life easier and more interesting, but primarily—solve a critical pain.      The product must be a “must have” for the TA, not merely a “nice to have”. If the founder focuses on a “nice-to-have,” the investor sees the following chain of causation: low customer willingness to pay → scaling problems → high Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) → inadequate growth. Thus, the quality of the problem being solved serves as an indicator of the founder’s strategic maturity and the depth of their customer discovery. Pillar 3: Product and Traction (Product & Validation) At the early stage, VCs do not expect millions in revenue, but they demand proof of concept. The idea alone is considered extremely risky and suggests an unserious approach to securing investment.      The Requirement for Proof of Execution The fastest deal killer is a pitch that begins with the phrase: “I have an idea”. The investor needs a compelling reason to believe the team “can pull it off”.    At the Pre-Seed/Seed stage, this means having an MVP or prototype and early signs of customer validation, such as initial sales, partnerships, or active product usage. This evidence serves not only as confirmation of the idea’s viability but also as proof of the team’s technical capacity for execution.  Pillar 4: Business Model and Strategy (Model & Vision) VCs invest in exponential growth, not short-term profit. This requires a decade-long vision. Lack of Long-Term Planning A key mistake is the unwillingness or inability to develop medium and long-term business

Introduction: Sovereignty as a New Economic Model Venture capital investment is traditionally driven by global scalability and an unlimited Total Addressable Market (TAM). However, for strategic investors operating in highly regulated markets, predictability often trumps potential. The national pivot toward technological independence in Russia is often misinterpreted by external observers as purely a defensive measure or isolationism. At iVenturer, we see it as a mandatory de-risking of national infrastructure that, paradoxically, creates the most predictable, state-guaranteed demand market since the foundation of major state enterprises. This is not a retreat; it is a strategic catalyst for endogenous growth—the formation of a new market for critical information technologies, which we estimate is worth hundreds of billions of rubles and must be absorbed over the next decade. The investment strategy iVenturer promotes is built on capitalizing on regulatory inevitability. We purposefully funnel capital into the so-called “missing middle”—localized software, hardware platforms, and, critically, integration services necessary to bridge the gap between current low adoption rates of domestic solutions and stringent government requirements. To contextualize the “Russian IT Standard,” one must understand its historical basis: multi-year dependence on Western solutions. Today’s imperative is securing Critical Information Infrastructure (CII). This mandate acts as the core driving force for all subsequent investment opportunities, transforming a theoretical market opportunity into legally binding demand. Section I. The Strategic Landscape: Guaranteed Demand Meets Regulatory Drive 1.1. The Import Substitution Funnel: Volume and Velocity The growth paradigm in the strategic IT sector has fundamentally changed. Where success previously depended on the persuasiveness and competitiveness of a business pitch, success in critical sectors is now directly determined by meeting regulatory deadlines. This shift, where mandate replaces marketing, converts traditional market risk into execution risk. An analysis of the current market state reveals staggeringly low penetration rates for Russian core systems. Statistics show that only 2% of government organizations have fully completed the switch to domestic operating systems and databases. Among private businesses, this level is even lower—just 1%.      This 98–99% gap represents immediate, legally enshrined demand. The slow start (despite the mandate) points not to unwillingness, but to severe technical challenges related to the integration and maturity of existing domestic products. The reality is that existing Russian OS and DB solutions, while compliant, often struggle with compatibility across a massive installed base of legacy corporate hardware, vertically specialized software, and proprietary business processes. Consequently, the investor focus shifts from simple demand generation (which the state guarantees) to investing in ecosystem engineering—funding firms that solve compatibility issues, data migration, and comprehensive support for large corporate and state clients. The market for solutions enabling fast, painless migration is just as critical as the core OS or DBMS product itself. This transition is inevitable. It is buttressed by state regulation on critical infrastructure, business support measures, and, crucially, restricted access to foreign services. All these factors guarantee that closing this 98% gap will accelerate regardless of global economic cycles.      1.2. Points of Critical Lag: Focus on CII The foundation of the Russian IT Standard is the protection of Critical Information Infrastructure. This infrastructure spans not only state bodies but also strategically vital sectors such as finance, transport, energy, the military-industrial complex, and healthcare. For these sectors, traditional corporate software acquisition models are unsuitable. Localized, fully auditable solutions with guaranteed long-term support and, most importantly, complete ownership of Intellectual Property (IP) are mandatory. CII is the source of the demand for developing and implementing trusted hardware-software platforms, including micro-processor platforms. This is not just a product replacement; it is building technological sovereignty from the ground up.      To clearly evaluate the investment vacuum in critical software, one must quantify the market size that the regulatory mandate obliges to fill. The Russian IT Standard: Domestic Software Penetration in Key Systems (2024) Software Category Penetration (State Sector) Penetration (Private Business) Growth Potential (Market Vacuum) Key Regulatory Driver Operating Systems (OS) 2% 1% High (Up to 98-99%) CII Regulation, Security Databases (DB) 2% 1% High (Up to 98-99%) CII Regulation, Registry Migration           This quantitative analysis shows the investor exactly where the bulk of the guaranteed demand (Total Government Mandate – TGM) lies. Given that the state actively stimulates domestic development in this area , low penetration equates to huge, untapped contracts awaiting vendors who can solve the technical migration issues. Section II. The Software Gold Rush 2.1. Niche #1: Operating Systems and Databases (The 98% Gap) While the OS and DB market is the most obvious and largest target, merely achieving functional parity with international standards is insufficient for success. The winners in this market will not be those who simply provide a functional equivalent, but those who achieve deep vertical integration and complete compatibility with critical industry-specific peripherals and hardware-software complexes (e.g., industrial equipment, secure payment terminals). Success factors require development teams to possess deep expertise in migrating legacy systems and meeting regulatory compliance, not just coding. We are looking for companies that can facilitate the transition of major enterprises, not just replace a desktop. The imperative of ecosystem creation means critical investment is directed toward companies developing seamless tools, utilities, and support structures around the core OS/DB. These solutions, which facilitate complex corporate deployment, will have high margins and act as natural monopolies in the migration support service market. 2.2. Niche #2: Specialized Software and Vertical Solutions Beyond the core systems, huge opportunities exist in the realm of industrial and specialized software, such as SCADA, MES, and specialized computer-aided design systems (CAD/CAE). In these areas, intellectual property localization is critically important due to the direct link to physical production, management of critical processes, and, often, state secrets. This thesis regarding the strategic importance of long-term planning is reinforced by analytics in adjacent sectors. For instance, though not IT, the construction and finishing materials market in Russia reached 8.2 trillion rubles last year and is projected to grow by 17% annually through 2028. Any entry into a new product market—be it a construction material or

*”When people ask me what the best investment strategy is, I usually smile and tell them: the best strategy is the one you can stick to when the world turns upside down. Between 2020 and 2025, the world didn’t just turn upside down — it spun like a roulette wheel. A pandemic, the sharpest interest rate hikes in decades, a boom in artificial intelligence, the freeze of IPO markets, and the silent rise of private credit — all of these were not headlines, but stress tests for every investor’s portfolio. At iVenturer Foundation, we’ve seen both sides of the coin. On one hand, the ‘safe’ options — deposits and traditional stock/bond portfolios — have their place. On the other hand, the disciplined allocation into alternatives has quietly, yet decisively, outperformed, not just in numbers but in resilience. This analysis is not about glorifying one approach or ridiculing another. It is about evidence. If you had $100,000 in 2020, the path you chose has defined your wealth today. Our mission is to make those paths clear — with real data, realistic outcomes, and the courage to embrace strategies that others often overlook. In the end, investing is not about chasing the hottest trend, but about designing a system that works through cycles, shocks, and surprises. That is exactly the philosophy we’ve built into iVenturer’s DNA.” — Aleksei Olin, Managing partner @ iVenturer Foundation Methodology: No Hype, Just Data To make this comparison fair, we used real-world benchmarks and conservative assumptions: Stocks (S&P 500 Total Return):2020 +18.4%, 2021 +28.7%, 2022 −18.1%, 2023 +26.3%, 2024 +25.0%, 2025 YTD +15.3%. Bonds (Bloomberg US Aggregate):2020 +7.7%, 2021 −0.6%, 2022 −14.4%, 2023 +6.4%, 2024 +3.1%, 2025 YTD +7.0%. 60/40 Portfolio: annual rebalancing. Bank deposit (1-year CD, US national average):2020 0.3%, 2021 0.2%, 2022 1.0%, 2023 1.9%, 2024 2.0%, 2025 2.0%. Alternative investments (iVenturer proxy): 40% Private Credit (Cliffwater Direct Lending Index, 8–12%). 30% Private Equity (Cambridge Associates US PE, −4% to +28%). 20% Venture Capital (CA US VC, −20% to +50%). 10% Hedge Funds (HFRI FWC, 5–10%). 💡 Important: For alternatives we assume access to quality managers and secondary markets — which means better-than-average returns and medium liquidity (6–12 months exit window). Scenario A: The Classic 60/40 Portfolio Result: $171,451 (+71.5%). Year by Year 2020: Pandemic crash, then a huge rebound. Portfolio +13%. 2021: Stimulus-fueled boom. +18.5%. 2022: The nightmare year — both stocks (−18%) and bonds (−14%) lost money. Portfolio −13%. 2023: AI-driven rally. +18%. 2024–25: Continued bull market momentum. Strengths Time-tested, delivers 7–8% CAGR long-term. Easy access, instant liquidity via ETFs. Diversification between equity growth and bond safety. Weaknesses Volatility. In 2022, many panicked and sold at the worst time. Dependent on Fed policy and macro cycles. Inflation can erode real gains. Scenario B: The Bank Deposit Result: $107,602 (+7.6%). Year by Year 2020–21: Practically zero yield (0.2–0.3%). 2022–23: Fed hikes push deposits up to 1–2%. 2024–25: Stabilized at ~2%. Strengths Security: FDIC insurance up to $250,000. Predictability. Ideal for emergency funds. Weaknesses Negative real returns: inflation 5–7%, deposit yields 1–2%. Zero wealth creation. An opportunity cost you can feel in your bones. Scenario C: Alternative Investments (iVenturer Proxy) Result: $205,000 (+105%). Year by Year 2020–21: VC and PE boomed, private credit delivered double-digit coupons. Portfolio +35–40% in just two years. 2022: Valuations dropped, VC −20%, PE −4%. But private credit and hedge funds cushioned the blow. Portfolio −3%. 2023: Stabilization, private credit at record highs (10%+), PE back to growth. Portfolio +12%. 2024–25: Double-digit returns: private credit 11–12%, PE 8–10%, VC rebounds, hedge funds steady. Portfolio +30%+ across two years. Strengths Highest returns: $205,000 vs. $171,000 (60/40) vs. $108,000 (deposit). Medium liquidity: exit possible in 6–12 months via secondary market or structured buyouts. Diversification across non-public markets. Private credit advantage: thrives when banks tighten lending. Weaknesses Results vary by manager: top quartile funds massively outperform, median funds can lag. Valuation lag: you won’t see daily pricing. Early exit may require a discount. The Big Comparison Investment Type Final Value (2025) Total Return Liquidity Notes 60/40 Stocks/Bonds $171,451 +71.5% High (ETFs) 2022 drawdown, strong 2023–25 recovery Bank Deposit (1-year CD) $107,602 +7.6% High Safe but crushed by inflation Alternatives (iVenturer) $205,000 +105% Medium (6–12 mo.) Strongest performance, requires patience and manager selection Risk & Reality Check Liquidity: Deposit: instant. 60/40: instant via ETFs. Alternatives: 6–12 months. Volatility: Deposit: zero. 60/40: moderate (−13% in 2022). Alternatives: lumpy, but diversified. Return potential: Deposit: tiny. 60/40: respectable. Alternatives: best-in-class if executed well. Investor profile: Deposit: retirees, ultra-conservatives, short-term reserves. 60/40: mainstream investors with 5–10 year horizons. Alternatives: professionals, long-term wealth builders, patient capital. Final Thought The past five years have been an accelerated masterclass in what truly drives returns — not luck, but structure. Markets rewarded those who balanced courage with patience, diversification with discipline, and liquidity with foresight. The lesson is simple: the financial landscape of the next decade will not be defined by a single asset class, but by how intelligently capital moves between them. Traditional portfolios will remain the backbone of global wealth, yet the premium opportunities will increasingly lie in private markets, tokenized assets, and hybrid investment models that merge data, technology, and human insight. At iVenturer Foundation, we believe the future of investing is integrated, intelligent, and inclusive. Integrated — because the best portfolios combine both public and private markets. Intelligent — because analytics and automation redefine how risk and opportunity are managed. Inclusive — because wealth creation must be accessible to those who think long-term, not just to those with access. The next wave of winners won’t be those who time the market. They will be the ones who build frameworks that outperform it — strategically, sustainably, and with conviction. — Aleksei Olin, Managing partner @ iVenturer Foundation