1. Headline & intro
Obvious Ventures’ fifth fund looks like a joke for math nerds — $360,360,360 — but it’s actually a referendum on whether “doing good” and “beating the market” can finally coexist at scale. In a funding climate where LPs are pulling back from anything that smells like 2021 hype, a purpose-driven, mid-sized US fund doubling down on climate, health and robotics is not business as usual.
This piece unpacks what Obvious is really betting on, why this fund size matters, and how its “planetary, human and economic health” mantra fits into the next decade of AI, climate tech and automation – including what it could mean for European founders.
2. The news in brief
According to TechCrunch, Obvious Ventures has closed its fifth fund at $360,360,360. The San Francisco–based firm, co-founded by former Twitter CEO Evan Williams and James Joaquin, has a long-running tradition of giving its funds mathematically playful sizes. This time, the number is meant to signal a 360-degree view across three focus areas: planetary health, human health and economic health.
Twelve years after launching, Obvious has now firmly crossed the “emerging manager” line. TechCrunch notes that only around 17% of venture firms ever make it to a fifth core fund, citing research from Sapphire Partners. Obvious’ track record includes early bets on Beyond Meat, Planet Labs, Recursion Pharmaceuticals and HR platform Gusto.
Fund V will continue to focus on seed and Series A deals, writing cheques in the $5–12 million range and targeting roughly 10 new investments per year.
3. Why this matters
At first glance, another mid-sized US VC fund hardly seems newsworthy in a market still awash in dry powder. But this raise is important for three reasons.
First, it is a vote of confidence in impact-oriented hard tech at a moment when “ESG” as a label has become toxic in many LP boardrooms. Obvious is not doing soft-impact consumer apps; it is backing geothermal exploration (Zanskar), AI-driven drug discovery (Inceptive, Recursion) and warehouse robotics (Dexterity). These are capital-intensive, deeply technical bets that historically scared off generalist funds after the first cleantech bust a decade ago.
Second, the fund size is the strategy. By capping Fund V at roughly $360 million, Obvious is explicitly rejecting the megafund game played by a16z, Tiger Global and others in the last cycle. The firm’s argument, as described to TechCrunch, is simple: if any single breakout IPO can return the fund, you preserve discipline.
That has real competitive implications. Smaller funds can lead early rounds without needing every company to reach decacorn status. Founders get partners who don’t pressure them into hyper-growth purely to move a billion-dollar needle, while LPs get exposure to climate and health themes without relying on a spray-and-pray growth strategy.
Third, Obvious is trying to square a difficult circle: planetary and human impact on one side, labour-displacing automation on the other. Investing in humanoid robots that do “dull, dirty and dangerous” jobs might be defensible, but it will inevitably raise questions about the future of work. This “economic health” pillar will test whether impact investors are willing to back technologies that improve safety and productivity while potentially accelerating job churn.
4. The bigger picture
Fund V lands at the intersection of three powerful trends reshaping venture capital.
1. The second climate tech wave. After the painful wipe-out of first-generation cleantech in the late 2000s, climate has returned with better unit economics and clearer policy support. Geothermal, long overshadowed by solar and wind, is experiencing a mini-renaissance as AI data centres and electrification drive insatiable demand for clean baseload power. Obvious’ bet on Zanskar fits squarely into the “climate infrastructure for AI” narrative that is quickly becoming one of the hottest themes in Silicon Valley.
2. AI for science, not just chatbots. The first two years of the generative AI boom were dominated by foundation models and developer tools. Now the frontier is shifting toward “AI for X”: drug discovery, materials science, biology. Inceptive and Recursion exemplify this pivot. For LPs worried that AI has become overvalued, AI-for-science offers a story where the TAM is enormous, the IP is defensible, and the timelines, while long, match the 10–15 year horizons of a VC fund.
3. A new robotics super-cycle. Robotics has moved from speculative to inevitable as logistics networks strain and labour markets tighten. Dexterity’s focus on warehouse and factory automation mirrors a rapidly growing ecosystem of humanoid and task-specific robots. These companies sit at the intersection of AI, hardware and industrial software — exactly the sort of complex stack where specialist funds can outcompete tourists.
What’s notable is how Obvious bundles these into a single thesis: if you can improve the health of the planet, the human body and the economic system simultaneously, you get compounding returns. That’s a far cry from the old impact-investing stereotype of trading away performance for virtue points.
5. The European / regional angle
For European founders, a US fund like Obvious raising a fresh vehicle is more than distant Silicon Valley gossip.
First, it expands the pool of credible lead investors for deep-tech climate and health startups that are already globally oriented from day one. Europe is rich in scientific talent — think of geothermal in Iceland, biotech clusters in the UK and DACH, robotics in Germany and Switzerland — but often capital-poor at the Series A/B stages. A mid-sized US fund with a clear climate and health mandate is a natural syndicate partner for European VCs such as World Fund, Planet A, Sofinnova or Earlybird.
Second, Obvious’ 360-degree philosophy meshes surprisingly well with the EU regulatory stack. The European Green Deal, the upcoming EU AI Act and existing frameworks like GDPR and the Digital Services Act all push companies to consider societal impact holistically. Funds that already think in terms of planetary, human and economic externalities may find it easier to navigate requirements such as SFDR Article 9 (for sustainable investment products) or sector-specific safety rules for AI and robotics.
Third, it creates competitive pressure. European institutions like the European Investment Fund and national development banks have poured billions into climate and deep tech, but private impact-focused managers still struggle to reach scale and raise repeat funds. If US players consistently demonstrate that impact-aligned hard tech can generate strong distributions, LPs in Europe — pension funds, insurers, family offices — will find it harder to hide behind the excuse that “impact doesn’t perform.”
6. Looking ahead
What happens next will determine whether Fund V becomes a case study in “impact VC 2.0” or a cautionary tale.
Over the next three to five years, expect Obvious to deepen its concentration around three overlaps:
- AI infrastructure for the energy transition (geothermal, grid optimisation, industrial efficiency)
- AI-native biology and chemistry platforms
- Robotics and automation that address labour shortages rather than pure cost-cutting
The biggest execution risk is timing. Geothermal projects are capital-intensive and slow; drug discovery can easily overshoot a 10-year fund life; humanoid robotics is still working through hardware reliability and safety. Obvious’ relatively small fund size helps, but it also limits its ability to follow on aggressively in these cash-hungry sectors.
Another open question is geographical focus. If the firm leans heavily into US-only bets, it may miss world-class European and Asian science. If it goes global too quickly with a small partnership, it risks spreading its attention thin. Many successful climate and health funds have solved this by building strong local co-investor networks rather than flying in solo.
For readers — whether you are founders, operators or LPs — the signals to watch are:
- Does Obvious back more asset-heavy projects like geothermal, or stay mostly software-first?
- How many of its robotics bets find sustainable business models rather than demo-ware?
- Do its AI-for-science companies translate impressive models into approved drugs or materials?
7. The bottom line
Obvious Ventures’ $360 million “full-circle” fund is less about cute numerology and more about whether a ruthlessly commercial version of impact investing can finally stand on its own feet. If this portfolio produces durable public companies in climate, health and automation, it will strengthen the case for specialist, mid-sized impact funds on both sides of the Atlantic. If it doesn’t, LPs may retreat once again to safer SaaS territory.
The real question is: will the next generation of mission-driven unicorns be built with capital that is unapologetically impact-first — or will that label still be seen as a concession?
