即便是堪称新模式教父的First Round Capital创立也不满10年。而且，虽然它迄今为止的回报一直相当强劲，但它们不一定比Foundry Group、星火资本（Spark Capital）或合广投资（Union Square Ventures）的回报率高——这几家都是相对年轻的公司，主要采用经典模式。或者，像凯鹏华盈（Kleiner Perkins）这样更老一点的公司，拥有人力资源合作伙伴、市场营销合作伙伴（而且已有时日）。

    我们真正需要的是更多的时间来观察新型风投和经典风投是否存在统计学上的差异，还是每个阵营中只是有几个异数。如果是前者，那么“失败”的一方需要进行调整。如果是后者，这将推翻莱西的主旨思想（文章题目没有很好地体现）。

    与此同时，当今的创业者不应该按模式来评判风投。不管它们是多么新潮，还是多么经典。（财富中文网）  

    Even First Round Capital, arguably the new model's godfather, was founded less than a decade ago. And while its returns so far have been very strong, they are not necessarily better than those produced by Foundry Group, Spark Capital or Union Square Ventures -- all relatively young firms that primarily employ classic models. Or an older firm like Kleiner Perkins, which has an HR partner, marketing partner, etc. (and has for some time).

    What we really need is more time to see if there is a statistical differentiation between new and classic VC, or just several outliers in both camps. If the former, then the "losing" side will need to make adjustments. If the latter, then it would validate Lacy's central thesis (which isn't terribly well-served by her post's title).

    In the meantime, today's entrepreneurs shouldn't judge a VC firm by its model. No matter how novel or antiquated.