There probably isn’t a very big difference in opinion here in the end. A matter of emphasis or perspective, perhaps.
Sure, the investors are institutions as in Taaleri’s other funds, but not necessarily the same ones. Or even if they are the same, at least the allocation and the person responsible are usually different. In that case, the existing energy fund sales channel might not be as valuable as one would hope. But it certainly isn’t worthless either.
Regarding the research-driven approach, execution is of course the essential thing. I can’t speak to that more specifically, but many do at least claim to be organized around it. And of course, early-stage VC isn’t pointless no matter how much competition there is, but again, it’s specifically the execution that determines success. Personally, I don’t necessarily see that Taaleri would have any particular edge in this regard compared to other VC investors. They don’t even claim to be looking for energy sector startups, do they? In those, there could in principle be some synergy.
And in my opinion, the value of a “Jyri” or “Timo” comes above all in fundraising. It’s much easier for an investor to jump on board when there’s a long-term track record, including exits. Taaleri’s track record is from completely different activities. And it can also matter for deal flow when it comes to the hottest cases.