Adapt three clearly hypothetical founder emails grounded in real funding announcements, with notes on relevance, evidence and invited contact routes.
By Ludovica De Pieri
Research checked 29 October 2026.
A useful VC cold email template gives you a place for verified relevance, your own evidence, the work you want to fund and one clear ask. It cannot supply those facts for you. The three examples below use real investment announcements and wholly hypothetical founder situations. None was sent, none is a success story and none establishes investor interest. Use the fund's invited fundraising route, which may be a form rather than an email to a partner.
Key takeaways
- Replace every bracketed field with a fact you can support, or remove it.
- State the portfolio connection and the difference between the businesses.
- Use the route the investor invites and respect its scope and preferences.
Read the fund's current instructions. If it asks for a founder form, adapt the relevant information to that form rather than sending a parallel message to every partner.
Seedcamp's website displayed a public pitch route when checked on 29 October 2026. That is evidence of a way to submit a case, not permission to subscribe the team to a marketing list. Do not use scraped or bought addresses. Use fundraising contact routes that explicitly invite a submission and stay within the invitation.
The ICO's business-to-business marketing guidance explains why recipient category and personal data matter. This article gives no blanket legal conclusion about a particular email. Check applicable rules where you are uncertain.
For the underlying research method, start with writing a first line from the fund's own deals. These examples show how the parts fit together after that work.
This example uses a hypothetical company researching a separate workflow for property managers. Its product and evidence fields are placeholders, not actual customer claims.
The real source is Seedcamp's 19 October 2026 Vessla announcement, which describes its investment in property operations. Read it to check both the connection and possible overlap before using it.
Subject: [Company]: [specific workflow] for [buyer]
Hello [name or investment team],
I read your Vessla announcement because we are working with [buyer] on a separate [workflow]. Our proposed distinction is [specific difference], which we would want to check against your portfolio before sharing sensitive details.
We have [prototype or product status]. Our current evidence is [dated, accurately defined observation]; [important limitation] remains untested.
We are planning a round to fund [specific milestone]. If this fits your current remit, would [the next step appropriate to your published process] be useful?
[Founder name] [Company and relevant link]
The opening connects a buyer and task. It does not assume that sharing the property sector makes the business suitable. The limitation sentence is also part of the pitch: it lets the investor understand what the proposed round would help establish.
This is a hypothetical founder scenario about a business delivering a technical service with software. No revenue, customer or team detail below is a claimed result.
Seedcamp's 15 October 2026 Solvera announcement describes an engineering firm built around AI. That supplies a real context for investigating how a customer buys an outcome. It does not establish that every service business fits the fund.
Subject: [Company]: delivering [defined outcome] for [customer]
Hello [name or investment team],
Your Solvera announcement prompted me to look more closely at your work on businesses delivering an outcome rather than only software access. We are testing [service or product] for [buyer], with [important difference in delivery model].
Today, [accurate status of prototype, pilot or paid work]. We are measuring [specific operating question], and have not yet established [material uncertainty].
The proposed round would fund [defined work and milestone]. If that is within your current focus, may I provide [the material your published route requests]?
[Founder name] [Company and relevant link]
A founder using this structure needs to explain who performs the work, who signs it off and how the business is paid. “AI-powered services” alone leaves those questions unanswered. Replace the example's category with the actual commercial arrangement rather than borrowing a portfolio company's story.
This hypothetical example concerns a company solving a technical integration problem. The company, test status and result fields are deliberately unspecified until a real founder supplies them.
The source is Seedcamp's 24 August 2026 Embedd announcement, describing chip integration work. We do not treat its performance headline as an independently tested benchmark or suggest another company can claim the same result.
Subject: [Company]: reducing [specific integration task] for [technical team]
Hello [name or investment team],
I found your Embedd announcement while researching investors who understand integration work in [relevant environment]. Our company addresses [different bottleneck] for [buyer], rather than [overlap you need to distinguish].
We have built [accurate product or prototype status] and tested [defined condition]. The evidence available today is [dated finding], with [remaining constraint] still unresolved.
We are seeking funding for [next technical or customer milestone]. Would it be appropriate to [specific next step under your application process]?
[Founder name] [Company and relevant link]
A technical reference is useful when it clarifies the problem. It should not turn the email into a list of technologies. Name the work the customer must complete and what your business would change about it.
Go through the chosen example field by field. If a line cannot be completed accurately, remove it or describe the uncertainty instead.
For instance, an agreed pilot that has not started should not become an active deployment. Interested interviewees are not paying customers. A test under controlled conditions does not establish a production result. The seed round guide explains how to keep definitions and periods attached to your evidence.
Check the investor side with the same care. A fund participating in a round did not necessarily lead it. A company announcement's total round is not the fund's individual cheque. A relevant historical investment may not describe the current team or mandate.
Then read the message as a whole. Can the recipient understand the company, the relevance and the ask without opening several attachments? Follow any specific instructions about decks or links rather than imposing a universal email formula.
A template cannot repair a poor match. If the fund's current mandate excludes your geography or stage, more personalised wording is unlikely to resolve that fact.
A hypothetical founder might find a perfect customer connection but discover that the investor only considers a much later stage. The useful outcome of the research could be “defer until we have the required evidence”. Another might find a direct portfolio conflict and decide to ask about policy before disclosing details.
The investor qualification workflow helps separate an exclusion, an uncertainty and a question worth asking. Don't label all three as a reason to send now.
After a refusal, update the record. Respect requests to stop and do not route the same pitch around a firm hoping a different person will reverse an answer without new context.
Persephone, the investor-matching tool for UK and EU founders, drafts first emails from the three closest deals a fund has done. You check the evidence, edit the draft and send through an appropriate route yourself.
Newsletter
Your weekly, one-minute read on the latest news and updates across the ecosystem.
See which VCs match your startup — instant scan, no credit card required.
Try the free scan