Doc 03 — Metrics & Validation Evidence
What is desk-validated, and what we will interview to confirm.
We separate two things honestly. The market and regulatory signal below is documented from public sources. The demand signal — that GPs and fund admins will pay to fix this — is the part we have not yet confirmed, so we name exactly who we will ask and what we will ask them.
1 · Desk-validated evidence
Documented from public market research, regulatory filings, and reported funding. This is the signal that the problem is large, the regulator has named it, and the rail exists.
| Claim | Figure | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| GP-led secondaries volume, 2024 → 2025 | $75B → $115B | Jefferies / Lazard | Validated |
| Total secondaries market, 2024 → 2025 | $160B → $240B | Jefferies / Evercore | Validated |
| Continuation funds, count growth | 5 → 130 | NBER WP 34471 (2018→2024) | Validated |
| Repeat usage — share of CV volume from repeat issuers | 58% | Jefferies 2025 (~80% of top-100 sponsors) | Validated |
| Secondary dry powder — capital is the abundant side | $302–327B | Jefferies 2025 | Validated |
| Evergreen inflows (standing capital that must deploy) | $113B · ~41% to secondaries | Jefferies / PitchBook 2025 | Validated |
| GP information-asymmetry conflict named; fairness-opinion norm pushed | SEC | Private Fund Adviser rule | Validated |
| Partial-close legal exposure when a leg fails mid-close | qualitative | desk research · industry practice | Validated |
| Canton institutional adoption & funding | $355M @ ~$2B | Digital Asset / a16z; DTCC, Goldman, Apollo, Citadel | Validated |
2 · Validation plan — three conversations
Routed through our VC advisor's secondaries network. Each conversation tests a distinct assumption: that the pain is real and budgeted, that the channel will carry us, and that the legal failure mode is as costly as we claim. Targets are role profiles we are being introduced to; we will name individuals once intros are confirmed. In parallel we pull the latest Coller Capital Global Private Equity Barometer and ILPA continuation-fund guidance for an on-record LP-voice line on continuous deployment.
Secondaries-fund partner
Partner / Principal · top-tier secondaries manager Three questions- Walk me through your last continuation close — where did time and risk concentrate?
- Has a leg ever failed or slipped mid-close, and what did it cost to resolve?
- Would reusable, pre-cleared buyers across deals change your syndication — and who would have to sign off to run a close on a new rail?
Fund-admin ops lead
Head of Ops / Fund Services · global fund administrator Three questions- How do you orchestrate and reconcile the legs of a continuation close today?
- Would you offer a continuation-as-a-service capability to your GP clients, and on what terms?
- What is your bar for integrating a new rail — security, audit, time-to-onboard?
Fund-finance lawyer
Partner · fund-finance / private-funds practice Three questions- How real is the partial-close legal catastrophe — what actually happens when a close strands?
- What would atomic settlement remove from the documentation and the risk?
- Does a need-to-know regulator window satisfy the fairness-opinion expectation?
3 · How we read the result
Desk evidence establishes that the market, the regulatory pressure, and the settlement rail are all present at once. The three conversations are designed to convert that into a demand signal — or to surface the objection that kills the wedge before we build further. We would rather find that early than ship a confident deck on an unvalidated assumption.
The market and the rail are validated; the willingness to pay is not yet. The plan above is the shortest path to confirming or killing it.