This to me is a little like wondering why distributed consensus doesn't have a seat at the table in other venture funds; there's important work to be done in scaling databases, too! But venture funds fund businesses. If you come up with a business with social proof that there's a plausible (if remote) chance of 10xing based on an advance in cryptography, you'll stand a chance of getting it funded.

Just not by this fund, which has nothing to do with cryptography or, for that matter, virtually any normal business.

> This to me is a little like wondering why distributed consensus doesn't have a seat at the table in other venture funds;

It would be a little like that, if the funds were called "Distributed Consensus Fund II" (or some common abbreviation thereof).

> Just not by this fund, which has nothing to do with cryptography or, for that matter, virtually any normal business.

And thus, in my mind, it should be named appropriately. The current name is wrong.

If the entire argument boils down to "crypto means cryptography", then (1) it's not a very interesting argument and (2) it's pretty much already lost. In 2020, cryptography means cryptography.