N+1

N+1

N+1 operates from four strategic hubs — San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Madrid — positioning itself across the dominant US technology corridors and the European growth market. The firm's founding year and named leadership remain absent from public record, and no disclosed wealth origin anchors its formation. The multi-office architecture suggests a presence designed to access deal flow in both Silicon Valley and the broader global technology ecosystem, though the specifics of its capital base are not publicly documented. Publicly verifiable detail on N+1's investment strategy and sector focus is not available. The firm's website and official communications provide no visibility into its current or historical portfolio, nor into the asset classes, stages, or deal structures it employs. No named portfolio companies, co-investors, or completed deals can be confirmed from public record, and its deployment model — whether direct, co-investment, or fund-of-funds — cannot be substantiated. The geographic footprint of San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Madrid implies a transatlantic scope, but no specific regional deployment figures or regional mandates are publicly disclosed. Operational scale cannot be confirmed. No team size, total deployment number, or adjacent vehicles — such as philanthropic foundations, real-asset arms, or operating businesses — appear in public sources. The firm does not publish information about fund structures, limited partners, or club co-investment memberships, and no dated operational event within the last 24 months is available from public record to indicate current posture. The multi-city footprint remains the primary structural data point, but without concrete portfolio or team detail, its functional scale is undefined. N+1's structure presents more as a distributed investment platform than a traditional single-city venture firm, given the four-office layout spanning both US coasts and a European capital. This footprint is a genuine structural feature, distinguishing it from regional or single-hub managers. The absence of any disclosed fund names, investor letters, or regulatory filings, however, limits understanding of whether this architecture serves proprietary capital, external limited partners, or a hybrid mandate. Governance and succession are similarly opaque; no public record names a decision-maker or describes the investment committee structure.