Some funds are about distributing money, not about getting something in return. Often the work is or remains open source. The classical VC and angels expect a monetary reward.

https://nlnet.nl/themes/

https://www.sovereign.tech/programs/fund

https://prototypefund.de/en/

One alternative VC fund that comes to mind is TinySeed: https://tinyseed.com

Though perhaps the "ethics" you're referring to, they invest in bootstrapped companies who aren't necessarily on the venture track moonshot rat race. For me, that's a big part of the unethical side of VC: Throwing money at a 1,000 ideas and expecting 999 of them to fail in hopes of one goldmine.

My own company, StatusGator, took a small investment from them even though we swore we'd never take VC money. It was a great choice for us and I feel TinySeed's ethics and values far outshine other investors.

The best way to invest ethically is to do it yourself. When you give your money to a VC firm to do it, they end up following bogus rules like ESG.

When I invest, it's always a mix of wanting the company's product to exist in the world and wanting to make money. Making money lets you invest in future things you want to exist in the world, so it's at least a good instrumental goal. But more importantly, companies that don't make money usually don't grow. So the social impact of investing in unsuccessful companies is usually small. The goals are mostly aligned as long as the product is something you want to exist.

Look into ESG.

This is a whole controversial world in and of itself.

I'm a partner in an Article 8 ESG fund/studio (KRING Ventures) here in Denmark. We definitely qualify as ethical and we hope to make a financial return at the same time. There is also a concept of creating "Zebras" not Unicorns and that's where we focus.

My real question is: Is there any asset manager who does not have an ESG program in 2025?

Even a small PE shop I personally know is launching an ESG fund this year (asian credit ESG fund). Everyone seems to be a PRI signatory nowadays.

Hadn't heard of it before, thanks will look into it.

For those curious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_gov...

Be sure to hear other side of the ESG, namely Aswath Damodaran's take on it [1] - although it's heavy on the financial/finance side. That's just one video, but you can find more about his position.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs1g7Epp11w

There are two parts to this:

- The Limited Partners (LPs) e.g. the folks putting money into the VC fund. E.g. would you consider money from Saudi Arabia be ethical?

- The portfolio strategy. E.g. would you find investing in some company in the carbon based fuel space be ethical?

Those are great questions.

For the first, the answer is "Can I do more good with the money than the bad that has been done to make it?" I don't have an answer for that, but I guess the cop-out is to say, "It depends on what good you're gonna do."

That said, I wouldn't get into business with those folks, but that's just my hard line stance on compassion vis a vis what they spend their money on.

For the second, if it is focused on more efficient means of utilizing carbon-based fuel, then it could be, but the problem is that increasing efficiency usually leads to more use, historically. That said, I'd vote "No" on that one, too.

There are certainly funds with a thesis that you might consider good for the world. Eg social impact, femtech, women and BIPOC-founded co's, etc.

LPs are often large allocators like pension funds who are making decisions for other people's money. I do think there's room here, but you have to ask yourself who the LP's are.

There are also platforms that allow individuals to invest directly in impactful opportunities without the traditional LP structure, like https://www.citizenmint.com, https://www.energea.com, and occasionally investments on https://www.yieldstreet.com.

Here’s an example of one that shut down: https://calmfund.com/writing/pause

Over the years, my consensus is that if you’re playing by values you’re leaving alpha on the table. Alpha that another company will try and likely scoop. Not that we shouldn’t keep trying, but it likely makes an already difficult game that much harder.

Someone posted some EU funds. So, maybe the EU spends more effort on this?

As far as the US, you can also look into state grants. Those from what I’ve researched have requirements such as partnering with research institutions or other stipulations like matching. It’s nowhere near, here’s my idea and thank you for the check.

While you are leaving alpha on the table, I don't think that has to be a hindrance until you hit a massive scale depending on how you define ethical. There's always alpha in becoming an experts in some vertical to invest in, just choose a non-controversial vertical and you're already most of the way there. Keep in mind that all the big players have lines in the sand to some degree and often refuse to work with "sin industries", they're leaving alpha on the table too.

Yeah, good point. There are some lines in the sand. I’ve heard stories about the surprising number of startups that are basically doing illegal things and justifying it as being disruptive. Fortunately it comes up during diligence and guess what they don’t get funding.

VC is fundamentally unethical. It is “the rich get richer” made manifest. If you want ethics in business, start by making a product that can make a profit in the free market without using VC bankroll to undercut the competition.

> Is there room for a more altruistic form of investing?

One common trend that I see is that the bad guys often think they are the good guys; and the good guys often screw things up so badly that they create nasty messes and end up turning into the bad guys accidentally.

For example, in Massachusetts we want to meet climate goals. To do this, we subsidize homeowners in getting heat pumps and updating insulation. To fund the subsidies, electric and gas bills went up and many poor people can't afford them. And oil bills stayed the same, incentivizing people to continue to heat with dirty fuel.

Maybe I’m a bit naive, but I’ve never really thought of VC as being unethical, although I’ve obviously heard of some bad stories (e.g., David Sacks and Zenefits).

What makes you feel that much of VC is unethical?

I've operated in the startup space for 20 years and over that time I've seen all sorts of things. You could pin that down to the individuals or the collective firms themselves. I don't think people initially intend to be harmful but over time for some reason power wealth status, whatever it might be corrupts many of them. I'm not always in a very specific right versus wrong way, but in a way where they feel they're justifying their actions as being something good. The problem is the good of the elite society is not quite the same as the public good. And quite frankly, the moral values can be questionable at times because they change based on whatever they need. It sounds like I'm painting the whole industry as a terrible thing. I don't think it's meant to be, but again people are easily corrupted. Maybe corrupted is the wrong word, but they are easily swayed to give up a certain stance all in the face of making money, achieving a higher status or whatever justification is given.

I should also say as someone who raised VC funding that also corrupted me. I find that power and money goes to most people's head. I didn't come out of it unscathed. In fact, I was incredibly arrogant and I am regretful for many of my actions. All in the pursuit of what I thought was a way to help people but effectively caused me to question what I was doing.

I worked with Capricorn [1] for several years, and these topics were always top of mind there.

They have the goal of making money first and foremost, but subject to the investments themselves being good for society, and serving LPs who do the same. E.g. they work closely with Skoll Foundation [2] and Skoll Global Threats Fund [3].

Another fund that we worked closely with was Omidyar Network [4]. They have more of a hybrid model of investing + philanthropy under one org. It meant they could do some projects that we couldn't at Capricorn, but also made it harder to measure concrete outcomes, which LPs tend to want.

1. https://capricornllc.com

2. https://skoll.org

3. https://skoll.org/jeff-skoll-group

4. https://omidyar.com

I'd say you'd need to look at the individual partners - any sort of integrity will ultimately have to flow from there.

I suspect in practice most would like to see themselves as good people with integrity but ultimately money will override all but the most egregious stuff.

Very well put, indeed.

I would only add that very few people ever admit -- even to themselves -- that they are unethical or even downright evil. Part of the delusion that convinces people to be amoral includes distancing themselves from the reality that we all have a moral compunction to be compassionate, even if most people fail to choose those paths for others outside their in-group.

And then, once money is involved, those knobs are turned up to 11. And look who runs most of the world now. Hell, even the poors are deluded into supporting them, which is a Goddamned shame, but expected once you really understand human nature and the nature of the universe we inhabit. We are fully free to choose callous idiocy over compassionate wisdom, even to our own detriment.

Make your money and put it to use. I’m sceptical of dual-mission VCs as change agents for society. They do good work. But not as good as the most militant non-profits or political entrepreneurs. At the same time, they fail to generate the returns that might empower you to become that change agent through wealth.

> cooperative syndicates (like angel syndicates) be a good way to do it instead

These are fun to be in but a social club by another name. You’ll have some wins, hopefully, but if you calculate an IRR it should wind up around the S&P 500 minus a country-club fee.

Purpose Ventures invests in companies made for steward ownership:

https://purpose-economy.org/en/ventures/

https://purpose-economy.org/en/whats-steward-ownership/

Think companies like Patagonia, Sharetribe and Ecosia.

> Is the sole goal just making money for them?

There are charities and non profits. Most top VCs have some investments in those which they expect to loose money, but which could be more than covered up by their profit seeking investments. If you want VC which only does losing investments you likely wont find any big ones

For us YC has been the best fund to interact with so far, there opinions are unbiased and they are very helpful. Mentors have a lot of actual wisdom to share.

We have also worked with pioneer fund and they are also very helpful and genuine

The litmus test for this is whether they are willing to fund sweatshop-automator-pro-max.

That's an excellent question, and well put.

If you want make money, it's best to deal with people who really, really care about making money, to the exclusion of everything else. The problem with dealing with those sort of folks is exactly as you say, and that is because our happiness depends on sharing with others who haven't had the same opportunities we've had. As such, dealing with those people means dealing with people who don't give a damn about anyone who can't further their bottom line, including the masses of forgotten-about poors.

I suppose you're going to have a hard time finding such people, because: a) if they were charitable, they'd already be putting their wealth to good use, and b) they're not going to structure their investments in a VC kind of way.

I imagine that folks with the money start a VC fund would probably just rant about how being WOKE is a problem with the rest of us, and not their assinine amoral life choices. I would stay far, far away from those fools.

If you can find private person who wants to help you succeed without taking ownership of your work, that would be best, but I doubt you will find that under the VC moniker.

So basically what you're saying is don't expect more from VC than what it is. Take it at face value and don't try to make it something it's not. I think that makes sense. Then I need to seek out other forms of investing and charitable like work e.g societal impact companies or cooperative funds specifically geared for that purpose. I think some things as a coop would make more sense tbh.

Absolutely.

If you want to see how charity is done properly, watch the youtube vid (watch?v=490TsUYe5f4) of Pat Morita telling the story about how the legendary comedian Redd Foxx gave him ~$4000 (IIRC) and said that he never wanted to hear about it, but that Morita should pay it forward to someone else some day.

That is the way the world could work, instead of how the wealthy have historically treated it, and are still treating it with even more vehemence here in 2025. The joke's on them, however, for their reaping such unhappiness in their lives is their own doing in the face of how the universe works on its most sublime level. They, of course, conflate pleasure with happiness, which are incomparable.

Joy and happiness require a compassionate input; nothing else will suffice.

And we ALL reap what we sow, for good or ill. It's in the fabric of the human universe.

I wish you all peace and happiness and success, my friend.

Very succinct and powerful words. In Islam we have something called Zakat which is effectively donating 2.5% of your wealth yearly to the most impoverished people. In that you're not looking for a reward in this life but that it's going to help you fellow man in the struggles that they're in. The reality is any of us could be on the other side, less fortunate than we are. We're truly blessed.

Thanks and indeed!

Three months before 9/11 (thank God I got in under the wire, so to speak!) I accepted Islam thanks to a Jewish Sufi housemate. I did so to become a better Christian which has worked out better than I could have ever hoped, or that most people are willing to accept. Oh well, that's their choice to ignore the truth that "Islam" means "peace" as well as "submission (to the Divine Will of Love)".

The real shame of the world is that neither the Islamic world, Christian world, nor Jewish world has truly accepted Christ's teachings of the ultimate importance of love in all our worldly affairs. Hypocrisy and willful ignorance (of Love) are but two of the 19 vices of the human heart (nefs), and, boy oh boy, are they playing out belligerently on Earth here in 2025.

We Sufis have, however, taken His teachings to heart (pun intended) because the only reason God has given us any messages is to help us be happier by avoiding conflict within and between ourselves. As communal beings, we must work together to succeed, so loving each other helps keep us peaceful and efficient and less brutal to our beautiful Mother Earth.

Of course, even a person not involved in religion can choose to love their neighbor, be charitable and kind and manifest the other 17 virtues as well. It's all our choice; it's just that being prayerful can help the "better angels" side of our potential prevail, but seeing how so many Muslims mistreat both other people and even their own folks, it's obvious that most folks aren't praying to be better people.

However, some of us are, my dear brother, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, ... , ALL the forms of religion, even atheists and agnostics, so take heart! Love is all that matters in this world, and we are each only responsible for the love we manifest, not how others fail to know and live the truth of Love.

Peace be with you. I am at your service.

Wow, how surprising, I had no idea. It opens up all sorts of questions. What do you do? How do you operate in a world like this? I was born into a muslim family but it wasn't until much later in life that I started to understand everything for what it is, now at 40, I feel like that's why its seen as the coming of age in Islam and when the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) received revelation.

I mean what do we even do? Where do we even start to correct so many of the societal problems. It feels like Islam has the solutions but people feel averse to it because of the continuing islamic terrorist connotations and related extremism or "backwards culture" that's not inline with western values.

> I mean what do we even do?

We first must learn how to self-evolve ourselves out of our own selfish mistakes, borne of vice, and become more virtuous. That is the starting point for ALL human beings' advancement, alone and in our societies. Only after beginning that process can we then learn how to educate our contemporaries about how our societies have strayed from compassionate, humane service into selfish, animalistic predation. And we ALL start in an unevolved state, as per our cultures' less-than-virtuous tendencies, plus our own susceptibilities to vice, so we all have correctable ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.

Our teacher (Murshid) passed away just before the COVID outbreak. His teachings are presented in many languages at mihr.com .

Our most senior student is his successor, a Kurdish-Turkish Ph.D. nuclear physicist named Dr. Abdulcabbar Boran, who lives to spread our teacher's Sufi teachings of Love.

If you want to see a picture of a fully-submitted lover of all human beings and the happiness that shows on their face, Dr. Boran's site is zwwa.de , but is only in German.

Send me an email and we can talk about more our personal situations there. I am grateful for the HN folks to allow this conversation, but I don't want to use any more of their bandwidth for personal stuff.

To sum up the answers to your questions about how? I will say that people have misrepresented the teachings of the Quran since the third generation after Prophet Mohammed, having removed how everything must be viewed in terms of love via zikr and wishing to reach God with our spirit (Ruh) to cleanse and purify our soul's heart (nefs' heart), thereby removing over time our selfish tendencies, leaving only loving service to one and all.

That ethos should be inculcated into our societies: that we should be acting for the betterment of all human beings, especially the most downtrodden, irrespective of which groups they belong. No one should be persecuted because of their religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, sexual preference, or gender identity. What a person does in the privacy of their own home is their own business, so long as they are not oppressing another human being there. We are to be just in this love, preventing oppression and being merciful and loving (especially) to those who fight this love (when possible), so that they can change course and join the ranks of the happy.

Happiness is our choice, but only if we learn how to treat others, and then choose to do so. It really is a very simple math, but difficult to manifest without the help of our Creator.

Always love. Teach to always love. Never hate. Teach to never hate.

> It feels like the majority of venture firms can rationalise away their position as doing good for the world but when you start to dig into it, the sole goal is making money and who they make money for isn't always the most righteous of people or entities.

Sorry but this is dripping with immaturity and naivety.

"It feels" - speak like a grown up, and provide actual examples. If you wanted to, e.g., call out VC firms that had funded specific defense/military projects for example, that would be a conversation (not that those are inherently bad).

"Sole goal is making money" - do you understand that capitalism and advancing business capabilities of a society is the driving force that's brought the most people out of poverty, ever? Making money, and helping people make money, is good. It means bringing to market products that others want, ergo products that help and enrich others.

Can there be questionable counterexamples? Maybe, but you didn't reference any, and it still doesn't negate the fact that VC is not an inherently unethical industry, which you seem to believe for some reason ("Are there any ethical VC funds?" as if they are unethical until proven otherwise).

> Even then many of the individuals at firms can be questionable, involved in scandals. And the things invested in, while there can be a thematic preference, often everything is thrown out the window in the pursuit of greed or missing out on a deal.

My issue with your post is that you throw around vague ideas and accusations with zero examples, and have a 'guilty until proven innocent' mindset for an entire industry which has helped create immense value.

Are you really so blinkered that you are surprised to learn that people on the outside often have a negative view of VC?

The horror stories are legion. It's much harder to find the stories of ordinary or good people in the industry. Silicon Valley (TV) was barely fiction, because it didn't need to be.

The quotient of decent people to snakes in VC is lower than most people encounter in their ordinary life. Someone who doesn't know how to navigate this industry is entirely justified to ask questions like this.

There are good people. Probably even most. But still well-below what an ordinary person expects to find in a random sample of humanity.

Try and make an evidence-based argument to help the OP's flippant implied claim that 'most VCs are unethical' ("Are there any ethical VC funds?").

I could see that there are incentive problems in VC that can, and have, lead to bad behavior, maybe even moreso than in other fields of finance.

But to claim that 'most VCs are unethical' is just ridiculous. Hence why the OP sounds like a whiny adolescent appealing to emotion and feels.

Do you have any exposure to venture capital or are you just taking a position on the wording of the post? I didn't name names for a reason. This is about ethics on a broad scale. VC is an industry that has to collaborate and cooperate, meaning people are fully aware of the compromised and storied nature of many of these firms and partners, as well as the incentives that drive them. I used a broad brush to generalise the ethics of it but essentially VC is about return on investment regardless of the "funding tech for societal good". I don't have to give the examples because they are in broad daylight and in techcrunch articles every other week. I will admit there are some, even many, investors I have met who I highly respect for their knowledge and experience and on the surface level it seems as though they have good integrity but even they have faltered in the face of difficult decisions. So the question was honestly, where are the ethical VCs, because the values seem to bend and break when push comes to shove and money and returns have to be put front and center.