Christian Tooley, an impact investor and advisor, asked the audience at SXSW London last week a straightforward question: What if investors could embrace human conflict to help bring about change that goes beyond the returns that venture capitalists so desperately seek?
Tooley was mostly talking about vice clauses, which are limitations placed on venture businesses by limited partners to control their investments. However, he also discussed making investments in general systems, or the frameworks of daily existence, ranging from social to biological.
Large institutional investors typically apply these restrictions because they do not want to invest in items that are at best contentious and at worst possibly dangerous. Some of these no-no industries frequently include those that deal with sex, narcotics like psychedelics, gambling, and tobacco.
Tooley believes that by avoiding these so-called vices, particularly when it comes to sex and drugs, investors are losing out on innovation. Tooley informed the audience, “Returns can be systemic, cultural, and financial.” “Sex is consumer-facing, large volume, and requires less initial funding. Substances have larger payoffs but a modest to long return on investment.
Although some firms may be bringing about great health and social advantages in addition to being profitable, he contended that such stipulations are really more about caving in to the societal stigma around these matters.
For instance, he predicted that the sex tech business will reach around $200 billion by 2032. The sector has benefited from modest but consistent venture capital funding throughout the years—at most a few hundred million dollars. There has not been a rush from mainstream investors to follow the lead of specialized investors and firms, such as Vice Ventures, who have attempted to support additional businesses.
Even OnlyFans had trouble finding investors because to its link with pornographic content, even though it generated billions of dollars in sales. Tooley later told TechCrunch, “Entire businesses are neglected not because they lack merit, but because they challenge comfort.”
Tooley has sponsored products like linq, a startup that claims to offer a safer way to transmit nude photos, and Polari Labs, a technology that purports to improve anal intercourse.
Large institutional investors avoid these groups, which is not surprising given that many of them are endowments and pension funds trying to protect their reputations and avoid legal ambiguity. Some investors were concerned that OnlyFans would contain minors, therefore they passed on the site.
Because it is only legal in some states, cannabis is a good example of a substance. Supporting a product that is often illegal carries potential legal, regulatory, and tax ramifications.
According to Tooley, smaller LPs, family offices, and progressive funds may find vice investing to be an especially appealing opportunity because institutional funds are less of a rival. “You miss the creativity and frequently the benefits if you only focus on the apparent issue,” he continued.
The stigma associated with investing in fields that may be advantageous but are now avoided needs to be addressed, according to Tooley. For instance, Tooley pointed out that discussing topics like menstruation in public was viewed as contentious.
Today, we have venture-backed businesses like WomanLog, femble, and unicorn period tracker Flo.
Tooley envisions a future in which more investors support taboo businesses that produce better tools for sexual health, more culturally nuanced psychedelic therapies, and biohacking that is appropriate for queer and trans bodies. He stated, “We do not just need funders who are OK with risk.” “We need people who are really uncomfortable with the way things are.”
Leave feedback about this