Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
The Dominion List averages about $1.09 billion raised per company, which puts the missing Canadian money at growth stage rather than seed. Its author says it is not a grievance.
The Investor · Invest desk
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Divide the headline figure and the argument narrows usefully. Some 552 companies raising more than $600 billion USD is about $1.09 billion per company [1], and 53 unicorns out of 552 is roughly one in ten [2]. Those are not seed averages. Whatever the Dominion List [1] measures, it is not a shortage of $500,000 cheques.
It is also worth being precise about what the $600 billion is. Capital raised in the United States is not value destroyed in Canada. It is a record of which balance sheets took the position, and of who holds the upside if those positions work. The list counts money in, not money back, which is why it functions better as an allocation argument than a loss statement.
Read that way, two of the three supporting findings line up with the arithmetic and one does not. The Council of Canadian Innovators found this month that Canadian startups too often sell to foreign buyers when it is time to scale [7], and CFIN found barely any Canadian capital in foodtech past the seed stage [8]. Both describe the post-seed hole where billion-dollar cumulative raises actually get assembled. BDC's May framing of the early-stage gap as an "economic sovereignty" issue [6] is the odd one out.
BDC is the address most exposed here, since it is the Crown corporation that runs Canada's largest venture firm [14]. Its fiscal 2026 results, reported this week, show a $70.9 million net revenue loss at the VC arm, with net income still growing as the value of its investments rose by more than $400 million [15]. Set that mark-up beside the list and it comes to roughly 0.07 percent of the capital the 552 have raised [3]. One figure is a single year of unrealized gain and the other is decades of cumulative fundraising in another currency, so treat the ratio as scale rather than scorekeeping. It still frames the size of the domestic cheque book against the thing it is being asked to replace.
The methodology cuts both ways, and honest use of the list requires saying so. A Canadian connection is defined by citizenship, birthplace, or education [3], which admits founders who left at 22 and companies that were never plausibly going to be Canadian, so $600 billion is a ceiling on attributable value rather than a quantum of loss. Nivard also says the list is not exhaustive [3], which pushes the other way.
Nivard himself declines the grievance reading, writing that venture outcomes at this scale are one of Canada's great exports and should be a point of pride [11], and that the opening is to support founders who want to come or stay [12]. That is not the use his numbers are being put to by the people circulating them [9][10].
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
The Dominion List is a database created by VC Antoine Nivard earlier this year, cataloguing the value generated by Canadians building companies in the US, value the list implies could have stayed in Canada.
The Dominion List covers 552 companies, including 53 unicorns, that have raised more than $600 billion USD.
This month the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) found that Canadian startups too often sell to foreign buyers when it is time to scale.
CFIN found there is barely any Canadian capital in foodtech beyond the seed stage.
Nivard wrote in an email that "Venture outcomes at this scale [are] one of Canada's great exports, and it should be a point of pride rather than a grievance."
Nivard said the policy conversation should not focus on stopping the drain, but on uplifting ambitious founders who want to move to Canada and those who want to stay.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One publisher, one curator's dataset, caveats disclosed
The headline figures come from a single newsletter reporting a single privately curated database whose author concedes it is not exhaustive and defines Canadian ties as loosely as education. The article does cite three independent institutional findings (BDC, CCI, CFIN) pointing the same direction, and BDC's own reported financials are a hard disclosure, which lifts this above anecdote. But nothing in the cluster verifies the 552-company or $600B totals, and the derived per-company average is arithmetic on unaudited inputs.
Cited in domestic debate; policy uptake unverified
Adoption here means uptake of the dataset as a reference point. Observable uptake is real but narrow: a week of amplification by two named Canadian ecosystem figures, one of them an advocacy CEO, and BetaKit's own framing. The claim that policymakers have taken note is hedged as 'reportedly' with no named official or document, so it cannot count toward measured adoption.
Framing outruns what the dataset can prove
The rhetoric around the list ('damning', 'five-alarm fire', a definitive number for brain drain) treats capital raised abroad as capital Canada failed to supply, when the dataset counts anyone with Canadian citizenship, birthplace, or education and explicitly is not exhaustive. The gap is moderate rather than severe because the coverage prints the methodology caveat and gives space to the author's own refusal of the grievance framing, and because the underlying growth-stage gap is corroborated by separate institutional research.
Advocacy and fundraising incentives on every cited side
Nearly every voice in the cluster has a stake in the conclusion: the list's author is a working VC whose dataset raises his profile in the Canadian capital debate; Build Canada and CCI are advocacy organizations whose mandates depend on the funding gap being urgent; BDC is a Crown corporation that frames the early-stage gap as economic sovereignty while reporting its own VC arm's results; and the vehicle is an ad- and sponsorship-supported industry newsletter that also promotes its own coverage. None of this makes the claims wrong, but no disinterested party appears in the cluster.
Directionally credible, numerically soft, single-sourced
Confidence is limited by the single-publisher cluster and the unaudited dataset, but is not minimal: the growth-stage skew of the shortfall is independently corroborated by two cited studies, BDC's financials are institutional disclosures, and the derived averages are transparent arithmetic on stated figures. The weakest links are the absolute totals and the claim of policymaker engagement.
invest
Moneris goes to US private equity, and a third of Canadian payments goes with it1 distinct publisher
invest
Touchmark opens a forwards market for tokens because finance cannot forecast them1 distinct publisher
build
Unsloth's 10% quant claim is really about which machines can run a 27B model1 distinct publisher
build
Instant's OpenAI exit comes with a due date: hosted apps stop on August 31st, 20271 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 24, 2026