Adeo Ressi has made a presentation recently that argues that the traditional VC model is broken.   I might agree that it has issues, but I think calling it dead is very premature.   Over at TechCrunch much was made of the slide I copied above, from Ressi's original presentation.  It does point out, correctly, that the line that represents the value that venture capital adds has dropped below the line that represents how much they have made, and that is disturbing.  If it continues, it could spell the end for many VCs.  Without providing more value than they cost, there would be no reason for investors to invest in the VC.   But I think the presentation and the slide are overly simplified.   The funds going into VC's today are not expected to be creating a return today.  It's expected to create a return in 5-10 years.   If I were an institutional investor, and a VC had a solid plan to attack the CleanTech markets, I might be inclined to invest in them.  What I'm saying is that the money going into VCs today is, or should be, based more on what an investor believes the markets will be like in 5-10 years, not so much the sorry state of the markets today.  Is it an optimistic view?  Perhaps.  But it also represents a belief that with the current state of the economy, the rising markets for energy around the world, the new adminstration and other factors, that the markets for GreenTech and CleanTech companies will be stronger in the future than today.