Bradley Tusk says he made more money working for startup equity than he did through traditional venture capital. The distinction is not that equity-for-services is a higher-return investment strategy for everyone: Tusk’s model trades specialized regulatory and policy work for ownership, while a venture fund invests pooled capital. His earnings comparison is his own account, not an independently audited or general comparison of the two models.
What Tusk means by “equity-for-services”
Instead of investing money raised from outside limited partners, Tusk takes an ownership stake in a startup in exchange for work that helps the company navigate regulation, communicate with lawmakers, or pursue government procurement. The company pays for expertise with equity rather than—or, in the account of his earlier work, instead of—cash fees.
TechCrunch reported on March 26, 2025, that Tusk had decided not to raise a fourth traditional fund and was shifting his focus to this model. Tusk Venture Partners was still supporting its existing portfolio through the fund’s lifecycle, which was scheduled to end in 2031. The shift therefore did not mean the existing fund or its companies disappeared.
Why Tusk says he made more money
“I actually made more money when I was in equity-for-services because even though there’s less leverage than there is on a venture check, you keep 100% of the proceeds,” Tusk told TechCrunch.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
His explanation concerns how proceeds are divided. With service-earned equity, he says, he keeps the proceeds attributable to his own stake. A traditional venture fund, by contrast, must meet its obligations to investors and distribute fund profits according to its economics. That difference can affect what the person running the firm ultimately receives, even if a fund investment gives that firm exposure to more companies or larger checks.
The statement is Tusk’s description of his own earnings and arrangements. The available accounts do not provide a like-for-like audited comparison of his personal income under each model. They do not establish that equity-for-services generally earns more than venture investing.
How the models differ
| Question | Traditional venture fund | Equity-for-services |
|---|---|---|
| Where capital comes from | Commitments raised from outside limited partners, which the fund invests in startups. | Equity is earned for specialized work rather than provided as a venture check. |
| What the firm does | Invests and manages a portfolio and the fund. | Provides expertise such as regulatory, legislative-communications, or government-procurement support. |
| How proceeds are treated | Fund returns are subject to obligations to investors and the fund’s distribution economics. | The service provider keeps proceeds attributable to its own equity stake, as Tusk describes his arrangement. |
| Who the model suits | Investors whose approach relies on pooled capital and fund management. | People with expertise a startup values enough to compensate with ownership. |
This is a comparison of business models, not a performance table: the sources do not quantify a general return advantage for either approach.
Why Tusk says the service model fits his work
In a February 12, 2025, first-person post, Tusk said the approach was a return to his roots. He described beginning in 2010 by foregoing cash fees for equity while helping Uber address regulatory issues, before later starting traditional funds with partner Jordan Nof.
He argues that the arrangement makes his incentives more directly dependent on helping founders handle regulatory obstacles: “It fully aligns us with founders and their startups and makes us accountable for tangibly helping startups clear regulatory hurdles.” That is Tusk’s rationale for the model, not proof that every equity-for-services arrangement produces aligned incentives. An equity stake can have little or no value if a startup does not succeed, and the service provider’s contribution and ownership terms still matter.
Tusk’s own account names work with companies including CLEAR, FanDuel, Lemonade, Ro, Ripple, and CloudKitchens. A 2016 TIME interview offers earlier context on his consulting work, including accepting equity when Uber could not pay fees and advising companies facing public-policy issues. These historical examples do not establish which clients or engagements are current.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Who could use this approach—and who may not
The model depends on a scarce skill that a startup is willing to pay for with ownership. For Tusk, that means regulatory and political expertise that can help a company navigate government and policy barriers. A founder considering an adviser or service provider on equity should evaluate the expected work, the provider’s relevant experience, the size and terms of the stake, and how that contribution will be measured.
Tusk explicitly recognizes that this is not a universal alternative to venture capital: “If you don’t have a skill set that enables you to earn equity and get on the cap table without having to raise outside money, then of course traditional venture is the right path.” For investors who do not have an equity-worthy service to sell, raising and investing pooled capital may remain the applicable model.
Best Value
What his fund figures do—and do not—show
In his February 2025 post, Tusk published historical figures for his funds and special-purpose vehicles: Fund I had almost 2 DPI and 4x MOIC; Fund II had 3.1x MOIC; and SPVs had 6.4x MOIC. These are figures he reported, not independently verified here, and they describe portfolio metrics rather than a direct comparison of his personal earnings under equity-for-services and traditional venture.
TechCrunch also reported Tusk’s statement that his firm had not returned capital to limited partners in four years. That was his description of the firm at the time of the March 2025 report, not an industry-wide statistic. Neither this statement nor the historical portfolio figures establish that venture capital is dead or that service-for-equity is likely to outperform fund investing.
Further reading on Tusk’s policy work
For historical context on startups and political regulation, readers can consult Tusk’s book, The Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups from Death by Politics. Penguin Random House lists it as published on September 18, 2018. It predates the 2025 shift and should not be treated as a guide to the newer business model.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
