'Founders and venture capitalists have love-hate relationships,' a dynamic that defines how crypto projects are built and funded today
"Depending on who you are, venture capitalists are either your best friend or your worst enemy.”
When capital is easy, tensions stay hidden. When markets tighten, they surface – between founders pitching ideas and investors deciding where to place money. Laura Inamedinova has seen that relationship from more sides than most.
A crypto investor and venture advisor who has worked across marketing, venture capital, and exchange ecosystems, she has spent nearly a decade navigating those shifting power relationships. Having entered the industry during the ICO boom and remained active through multiple market resets, she now takes a more restrained view of where crypto is heading and what it demands from those building within it.
“The relationship dynamic can go either way,” Inamedinova, who at the time of the interview was Chief Global Ecosystem Officer at Gate, told The Crypto Radio. “Venture capitalists can be you're really good friends.”
Growing alongside crypto
Inamedinova’s entry into crypto coincided with a period of rapid expansion. She first learned about Bitcoin earlier in the decade, but began actively participating around 2016, when ICOs lowered barriers to entry and capital flowed freely. For young professionals without established networks, crypto offered something unusual: the chance to grow in parallel with an emerging industry.
With a background in tech marketing and communications, she began helping early crypto projects explain complex ideas to broader audiences. That work evolved into the launch of LKI Consulting, a marketing agency that works with exchanges, infrastructure projects, and DeFi protocols during crypto’s formative years. Over time, however, she became increasingly drawn to the investment side of the market.
“Marketing is great, but you will never make the crazy amount of money that you can make investing,” she said.
She started investing as an angel with relatively small amounts, later moving into advisory roles and venture capital. That progression – from service provider to investor – mirrored the broader professionalisation of the industry itself.
Venture capital and the myth of absolute power
One of the most persistent misunderstandings Inamedinova encounters is the belief that venture capitalists control the entire game. From the outside, VCs are often perceived as sitting atop vast pools of capital, deciding which projects survive. In reality, she argues, the dynamic is far more fluid.
“On the contrary, venture capitalists are actually the ones usually running around trying to get the right founders," she said. "Very often begging to get in.”
That shift is closely tied to how the market itself has changed. Inamedinova contrasts today’s environment with the ICO era, when capital was abundant and fundraising could happen in days.
“2016-2018 was the gold rush days,” she said. “Right now, there is not enough liquidity for the amount of projects that are being launched.”
While overall venture funding has fallen, she points to a change in how capital is deployed. Fewer deals are being done, but those that move forward tend to involve larger commitments and higher conviction. For founders, that raises the bar – but it also means support can be deeper once secured.
This tightening has reshaped behavior across the industry. Investors are more selective, founders are forced to prioritize fundamentals, and survival increasingly depends on building something that can endure beyond a single market cycle.
The underlying VC model remains unchanged. Funds place early, high-risk bets, knowing that a small number of successes must offset the majority of failures. What has changed is the environment in which those bets are made. Liquidity has declined, competition has intensified, and experience now carries more weight than narrative.
For founders, that shift can feel unforgiving. But Inamedinova sees it as a necessary correction after years of excess. Projects that raise capital today are under greater pressure to demonstrate execution, revenue potential, and a clear understanding of their market.
A shifting global map
These pressures play out differently across regions. Asia continues to produce strong technical talent, while the United States remains influential but constrained by regulatory uncertainty. Europe, Inamedinova notes, has leaned more heavily toward traditional finance integration than crypto-native experimentation.
Against that backdrop, the Middle East – and the UAE in particular – has become increasingly relevant. Regulatory clarity and capital concentration have made the region attractive, but not without conditions.
“Find the company here, relocate here, build here,” she said, describing the expectations placed on founders.
Rather than offering passive incentives, the UAE has encouraged long-term commitment. That approach has drawn founders looking for stability, safety, and access to capital, even as the local talent pool continues to develop. Dubai and Abu Dhabi now operate as complementary hubs, with growing relevance for DeFi and infrastructure-focused projects.
Institutions and 'smart money'
Institutional participation has further altered crypto’s risk profile. Inamedinova describes “smart money” less as a badge of legitimacy and more as a reflection of incentives. Institutions are drawn to yield, tokenization, and infrastructure that mirrors traditional finance while offering operational efficiencies.
This shift affects what gets funded. Institutional capital often comes with stricter requirements around governance and sustainability, favoring projects that integrate with existing systems rather than attempt to bypass them entirely. While that has narrowed the field for speculative experimentation, it has also increased the likelihood that funded projects can scale responsibly.
Stablecoins are a clear example of how those institutional incentives work. Inamedinova frames their growth not as ideological progress but as balance-sheet logic. Issuers benefit from holding reserves, while users are encouraged through discounts or convenience.
She compares this to familiar consumer models, where stored balances quietly generate returns. In that sense, stablecoins reflect how financial infrastructure often evolves – incrementally and driven by incentives rather than rhetoric.
Discipline over narratives
Despite ongoing interest in AI, tokenization, and new gaming models, Inamedinova remains cautious about narratives that move faster than fundamentals. For founders, she stresses the importance of real expertise and long-term thinking over trend-chasing or influencer-driven hype.
Crypto, she argues, no longer rewards inexperience in the way it once did. Longevity now depends on self-awareness, adaptability, and choosing roles that align with genuine skills rather than perceived status.
Nearly ten years after entering the space, Inamedinova sees crypto less as a shortcut and more as an ecosystem – one that increasingly rewards those willing to build through cycles rather than around them.
