There is a category of company that the existing capital stack does not serve well. The companies in this category are post-revenue. They have proven business models. They have customers, traction, and capital efficiency. They are operating in real-economy sectors, food, energy, health, water, waste, manufacturing, materials, where the world is structurally short of investment. They have founders with industry expertise and prior high-growth track record. They are exactly the kind of company the world now needs more of.
And they cannot find capital that fits.
Banks do not lend to them; the risk profile is too high and the asset base too soft. Standard venture funds do not deploy into them; the return profile does not match the unicorn-and-bust model that justifies the venture structure. Private credit funds do not deploy to them; the equity component does not match the credit fund's return target. Growth equity buyers come in too late, at scale that no longer matches the company's stage. Family offices and high-net-worth investors increasingly want this category in their portfolios but have lacked instruments built specifically for it.
That gap is the missing middle. It is the most important structural opportunity in capital markets that almost no one is talking about.
The companies addressing major social and environmental challenges often sit between two capital worlds: too advanced for grant funding yet not sufficiently de-risked for conventional venture investment.
From MAD Fund Philanthropic First-Loss Strategy, 2026
The shape of the gap
To understand the missing middle, it helps to look at the existing capital stack from end to end.
At one end sit grants and concessional capital. These instruments serve early-stage research, early commercial pilots, and ventures still establishing whether the technology works at all. They are appropriate for the stage they serve. They are not appropriate, and not designed, for companies that have already proven the technology and are now scaling commercially.
Next come traditional venture funds. These instruments serve early-stage and growth-stage companies that fit the venture-software pattern: capital-light, exit-driven, optimised for hypergrowth, willing to accept dilutive equity capital in exchange for the operational support and pattern recognition the fund provides. The model works when the company fits the assumptions. It does not work, and produces predictable failure, when the company operates under different physics. Most real-economy companies in the missing middle operate under different physics.
Beyond venture sit the growth-equity and late-stage private equity buyers. These instruments deploy at scale, often $20 million to $100 million per ticket, into companies that have already crossed the threshold of stable cash generation and predictable growth. By the time a company is ready for this layer, it has typically had to find its way through the growth phase using whatever capital was available, which has often meant the wrong instrument applied with growing distortion as the company scaled.
Bank lending sits parallel to all of this, providing working capital, asset finance, and project finance for companies with the security profile and operating history banks require. Most growth-stage real-economy companies cannot meet that profile.
What is missing, in this stack, is an instrument designed specifically for the company that is post-revenue, has proven its commercial model, has capital efficiency, and is now scaling toward a five- to seven-year horizon. The company that needs $2 million to $15 million per round, in a structure that combines income for investors with equity participation in upside, paired with operating support that the founders cannot easily access elsewhere.
That is the missing middle. It is structurally underserved. And it is where most of the companies that will rebuild the systems the world depends on actually sit.
Why it has been missing
The missing middle has been missing for understandable reasons. The instrument that fits it is harder to construct than instruments at either end of the stack.
A pure equity instrument is too dilutive for companies whose unit economics work, because those companies should not have to give up disproportionate ownership for capital they could service through cash flow. A pure debt instrument is too rigid for companies still scaling, because the debt service requirement collides with the growth investment cycle. The instrument that works is structured: part repaid through operating cash flows, part participating in equity upside, with covenants matched to commercial reality rather than to standard credit metrics.
Constructing this kind of instrument requires capability that combines venture diligence with credit underwriting with operating support. It also requires fund structures that are willing to accept a different return shape: more income during deployment, less back-end-loaded equity at exit. And it requires deal-level work that is more intensive than either end of the stack: the structure of each deal has to be sized to the specific company, not standardised across a portfolio.
All of this means the missing middle is a more difficult business to operate than either pure venture or pure credit. It is also more durable. The instruments produce income earlier, the underlying companies are operating businesses with cash flow, and the exit profile is broader because the companies are attractive to a wider range of acquirers.
Why the missing middle matters now
Three shifts make the missing middle more important now than it has been at any point in the last decade.
First, the rotation of capital. The categories that drove the last decade's venture returns are repricing. Allocators are looking for places to redeploy. Real-economy categories with credible cash flows are now competing successfully for institutional capital. The supply of allocator demand for instruments that fit the missing middle has grown faster than the supply of instruments built for it.
Second, the maturation of the underlying companies. A generation of real-economy companies (in agriculture, energy, water, biotech, materials) has now reached the post-revenue stage with proven commercial models. The pipeline of companies that fit the missing middle profile is the largest it has been in modern memory. The constraint is not the supply of qualifying companies. It is the supply of capital instruments structured to back them properly.
Third, the structural pressure on the systems the world depends on. The food, energy, water, health, and waste systems require investment at scale to meet the demands of the next twenty years. Most of that investment will come from the post-revenue, growth-stage company layer that the missing middle serves. Allocators with conviction in this story are looking for the cleanest pathway to deploy capital against it. The missing middle is that pathway.
You are investing in the engine, not just one fund.
From MAD Group platform thesis, 2026
What the right instrument looks like
The instrument that serves the missing middle has four characteristics.
Structured. A meaningful share of the capital is repaid through the operating cash flows of the company, not through dilution at the next round. This produces income for investors during the life of the deployment. It also sequences the company's capital to its commercial reality.
Equity-aligned. A modest equity sleeve preserves participation in long-term upside. The equity is the component that compounds across the multi-year arc; the structured component is what produces income along the way.
Capability-paired. Capital alone is not what scales companies in the missing middle. The companies need operating support. The Venture Compass assessment, the VC Mastermind cadence, the Ambassador network, and the broader operating bench compound on the capital. Without the capability layer, the capital is not enough. With the capability layer, the capital becomes more productive than its dollar value would suggest.
Patient and disciplined. Patient about the underlying multi-year story. Disciplined about quarter-by-quarter commercial reality. Both, in sequence, repeatedly. The instrument has to support that pattern of behaviour, not work against it.
The 80/20 model that anchors MAD Fund 1 is built around these four characteristics. Structured growth capital plus equity sleeve. Operating support through the Compass and the Mastermind. Patient about the long arc. Disciplined about the quarterly distributions and operating performance.
What this means for allocators
For allocators, the missing middle is a structural opportunity at the asset class level.
The supply of capital relative to the supply of qualifying companies is favourable. The category is real but underserved. The allocators who participate early in this layer compound across the cycle. The allocators who wait until the category is fully institutionalised will participate at lower returns and at scale that no longer requires conviction.
The return profile of the missing middle is also structurally different from either pure venture or pure credit. The income during deployment compresses the J-curve. The equity participation preserves long-term upside. The diversification effect of holding a portfolio of post-revenue companies (rather than a portfolio of pre-revenue venture bets) reduces variance. The risk-adjusted return profile is, on the available evidence, better than the comparable return profile in either of the adjacent asset classes.
And the underlying exposure is to companies operating in the categories the world needs more of: food, energy, health, water, waste, materials, manufacturing. Allocators who want their capital to compound over decades while doing measurable good in the categories they care about have, until now, lacked instruments built for that intent. The missing middle is where those instruments now sit.
A closing note
The missing middle is not a marketing phrase. It is a real structural gap in the capital stack, between grants and venture, between venture and growth equity, between bank lending and what banks will not lend on. The companies that fit this gap are the companies the world now needs. The instruments that fit this gap have been under-supplied for decades.
Closing the gap is not optional. The systems the world depends on require it. Allocators looking for differentiated returns require it. Founders building the next generation of real-economy companies require it.
That is what MAD Fund 1 is built to do. It is also why a platform architecture, rather than a single fund, is the right unit of construction. The missing middle is not a one-fund problem. It is an asset-class problem. Building the asset class is the work of the platform, not of any single vehicle inside it.
Read more about the architecture in the MAD book in our Books library. Wholesale-qualified investors interested in the Information Memorandum for MAD Fund 1 are welcome to enter the Investor Room.
Information for wholesale clients only. This paper is general commentary and does not constitute financial, tax, legal, investment, or other professional advice. It does not take into account the objectives, financial situation, or needs of any person. It does not constitute an offer of securities or an invitation to subscribe. Any investment opportunity referenced is offered privately and only to wholesale clients as defined under sections 761G and 708(8) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), under separate offer documentation. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance and capital is at risk. Tax positions referenced are based on the manager's understanding of the ESVCLP regime at the date of publication; legislation may change. Prospective investors should obtain their own independent financial, legal and tax advice before making any investment decision. Nothing on this page should be relied on as a substitute for the Information Memorandum and Partnership Deed, available on request to wholesale clients via the Investor Room.