80 Seed AI Funds That Invested in…

Fit and Reach are subjective or labor-intensive, while Recency is the one score that can be objectively checked, and most investor lists skip it.
- "Founders fake one of the three. Fit is a judgment call and Reach is legwork, while Recency needs a single thing most lists leave out: a date."
A fund's website activity is not evidence of activity. Only a dated, public deal counts.
- "Any row without a date from the last six months is a bookmark, however busy the fund's website looks, and bookmarks go in their own tab until you find the date."

A third of the active seed AI funds announced a deal in the last month, suggesting a surge of fresh activity.
- "The shape of that list surprised me. A third of it moved in the last month" and "27 of the 80 seed AI funds on the list announced their newest evidenced deal within 30 days of October 6, 2026."
Recent deal-makers are positioned as the most receptive targets.
- "the 27 that just announced a deal are the partners with the freshest reason to take a meeting this month."

Fundraising target lists are perishable assets, with funds aging out and new ones entering weekly.
- "The list is also perishable. Five of these funds leave the 180-day window by October 20, new ones arrive every week."
The author's dataset is refreshed weekly, and the paid package includes tooling to automate monitoring.
- "It tracks funds with public evidence of a deal announced in the last 180 days, refreshed every week" and "a Claude prompt that reads the list's weekly JSON feed and flags every new, changed and departed fund in your sheet."

Co-investment overlap is mapped as a route to multiple funds through a single connection.
- "The Syndicate Map: the seven rounds that put 24 of these funds on the same cap tables, and the three-line founder message that tells you which partner to email first."
- "seven syndicates open a warm path to 24 of them."

Against the common practice of judging activity by website or brand presence, the author argues only a dated public deal counts, and undated funds should be demoted.
Evidence: "Any row without a date from the last six months is a bookmark, however busy the fund's website looks."

Prestige doesn't guarantee current activity. A fund's recency can lapse, and the author flags a major firm approaching the cutoff.
Evidence: "five funds leaving the 180-day window by October 20, including one of the largest firms in venture, and what to check before you demote any of them." (Note the caveat that demotion should follow verification, not assumption.)

Even a well-structured dataset carries attribution risk because every source is a LinkedIn post, which can misname who was in a round.
Evidence: "Every one of the 80 sources is a LinkedIn post, and posts written by third parties can misname who was in a round. One row on this list links to a post in which a different firm announces leading the deal. Both firms may well be in it. I flagged that row and six others in the sheet."

The VC Corner

Description: Substack newsletter and resource hub for founders raising capital.
Why mentioned: Publisher of the scored seed AI investor sheet and related tooling.
Quotes: "So I turned the full list into a working sheet for premium members, with every row ready to score." and "+10k Investors + Templates: Financial Modeling, Cap Table, Decks, Co-Founders Agreements, Startup Valuation, etc."

Claude (Anthropic)

Description: AI assistant used for data workflows.
Why mentioned: Powers the weekly refresh prompt that monitors changes to the investor list.
Quotes: "The Weekly Refresh Prompt: a Claude prompt that reads the list's weekly JSON feed and flags every new, changed and departed fund in your sheet."

LinkedIn

Description: Professional social network.
Why mentioned: Sole source of the dataset's deal evidence, which carries attribution risk.
Quotes: "Every one of the 80 sources is a LinkedIn post, and posts written by third parties can misname who was in a round."

(The 80 funds and the "one of the largest firms in venture" are not named in the visible text.)

Ruben Dominguez

Description: Author of The VC Corner.
Why mentioned: Built the Fit/Recency/Reach scoring framework and the working sheet.
Quotes: "Three weeks ago I published the scoring system I'd put behind any investor list: Fit, Recency and Reach, 1 to 5 each, where a 1 on any score keeps the row out of your outreach."

Add a column with each fund's last publicly announced deal date. Move any row without a date in the last six months to a separate "bookmarks" tab until verified.
Quote: "Next to every fund, write the date of its last publicly announced deal."

Score each fund 1-5 on Fit, Recency and Reach, and exclude any row with a 1 on any dimension rather than averaging it away.
Quote: "1 to 5 each, where a 1 on any score keeps the row out of your outreach."

Target funds with a fresh announcement first, and verify who actually led or joined a round before referencing it in your email.
Quotes: "the partners with the freshest reason to take a meeting this month" and "check them before you score them."

Because the dataset relies on public LinkedIn posts, quieter funds that don't announce deals may be undercounted, meaning the list measures publicized activity, not total activity.
Quote: "Every one of the 80 sources is a LinkedIn post."

Automating list upkeep via an LLM prompt reading a weekly JSON feed suggests investor targeting is shifting from static spreadsheets to machine-readable, continuously updated feeds.
Quote: "a Claude prompt that reads the list's weekly JSON feed and flags every new, changed and departed fund in your sheet."