Fund performance used to be the primary lens through which LPs assessed managers (can you manage third-party capital and can you do so well?). But as capital moves more intentionally into emerging markets like the GCC and broader MENA, that lens is widening. In ecosystems where infrastructure is still taking shape and where access is increasingly defining outcomes, I see allocators expanding the criteria, placing increasing emphasis on access and alignment, with strategy and returns seen as baseline expectations.
This broader shift is showing up across the industry. One clear way to see it is through coinvestments. In their 2025 Global Investor Survey, Adams Street Partners noted that 88% of LPs plan to increase allocations to co-investments, with some reserving up to 20% of their private markets capital for the strategy over the next five years. We’ve seen this dynamic play out in our work, where several LPs have actively participated in coinvestments into our portfolio.
This is a natural progression; as the venture asset class matures, especially in our region, so do expectations; LPs begin to look beyond performance and toward proximity, pattern recognition, network depth and true partnership. At its core, what powers or stunts this evolution is how strong the relationships you develop are, and the trust that makes them work.
From the outset, we had made the deliberate - albeit risky - decision to keep our LP base focused and engaged. It was a risk - especially in a market where capital isn’t always guaranteed. Would it be enough? Could we develop those relationships deeply and consistently? Some of our peers went broad, prioritizing reach over proximity, we chose depth. There’s no right or wrong answer, really - it’s about what fits your market and your firm.
We sensed that investors wanted to do more than just commit capital. That has, thankfully, proven to be true. We’ve had the chance to work alongside LPs who want to lean in - not just for exposure, but for context, access, and shared conviction. It’s a dynamic we’ve come to value deeply.
As GPs today, we need to demonstrate that we can offer access and prove that we can execute on it. And access here, doesn’t just mean exposure to competitive rounds. It means proximity to the process, visibility into the thinking behind allocation calls, tapping into that information asymmetry, learning the “signals”, and seeing where all of this intersects with their strategy, mandate and evolution as investors,
As an LP, working closely with a GP you’ve backed gives you deep insight into their process, their decision-making under pressure, and how they build and hold conviction as well as how they navigate ambiguity. This is no longer a market where LPs back returns only, they back relevance: access x alignment x signal strength. Do you have the relationships to access the most competitive opportunities? But also, can you activate capital when it counts? And very importantly on signal, do the right people want to work with you (or work with you again)?
The same is true in reverse; founders want more than just capital. They’re looking for partners who engage, offer perspective and can help unlock access/open doors for them. That kind of partnership is built on trust, not transactions.
Trust is the ultimate currency, and increasingly, the relationship behind the deal now matters more than ever before. And trust, when built consistently, compounds; it scales a relationship across funds, cycles and shared outcomes.
Five years in, I’d like to think we’ve built real proximity with our LPs and that’s not something we take for granted (and of course, as the firm grows, so does the responsibility to keep earning that trust by staying close and continuing to deliver in ways that matter).
Venture, as with any asset class, is still taking shape. Hedge funds looked entirely different seventy years ago, and this chapter of venture is no exception. We’re building it as we go - through relationships, trust, and a shared willingness to grow with the market, not just in it.