Sergey Jakimov at ARDD2025: 4 years into longevity investing: Takeaways deploying an early stage...

Sergey Jakimov at ARDD2025: 4 years into longevity investing: Takeaways deploying an early stage...

🎙 Sergey Jakimov 👥 9K 📅 January 21, 2026 ⏱ 21 min 👁 189 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

longevityinvestingventure capitalstartupsaging

Summary

Sergey Jakimov, a partner at LongeVC, presents his insights from four years of investing in longevity startups at the ARDD2025 conference. He emphasizes the need for the field to create financial success stories to attract more capital. He describes his fund’s approach: focusing on age-related diseases rather than holistic life extension, breaking down aging into actionable targets, and prioritizing assets with clear regulatory paths. He shares data from his fund’s pipeline, showing a conversion rate of 0.8% from initial evaluations to investments. He notes trends in round sizes, with Series A rounds getting larger due to increased costs and slower clinical progress. He highlights the importance of strategic partnerships with pharma, citing examples like UNP and Turn Bio. He advises founders to have their own pipeline, engage with industry early, and avoid ‘spray and pray’ approaches. He identifies common founder mistakes, such as overvaluing mouse studies and neglecting regulatory pathways. He observes a shift in investor focus towards assets and validation, with more NHP studies and pay-to-play term sheets. He concludes by urging the industry to be pragmatic and speak the language of regulators and pharma to grow the pond.

190 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk provides valuable insights from a practitioner’s perspective, offering concrete data on deal flow, round sizes, and pharma partnerships. The argumentation is coherent and pragmatic, emphasizing the need for commercial viability in longevity biotech. However, the evidence is largely anecdotal and based on a single fund’s experience, limiting its generalizability. The speaker’s logic is sound, but the lack of external validation and potential conflicts of interest (as an investor promoting his own fund) should be considered.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The talk is an expert opinion based on personal experience, not a scientific review. The speaker cites no external sources, but his claims are grounded in his fund’s data. The title accurately reflects the content. The presentation is well-structured and clear, but the lack of citations and reliance on anecdotal evidence reduce its scientific rigor.

147 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: a presentation on lessons learned from four years of investing in longevity startups.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The speaker is a practitioner with direct experience in longevity investing, providing concrete data from their fund's operations. However, the talk is largely anecdotal and lacks peer-reviewed evidence or external validation. The claims are plausible but not independently verified.

Key Moments

Contribution & Novelties

The talk offers a unique insider perspective on the practical challenges of longevity investing, including detailed data on deal flow and pharma partnerships. It provides actionable advice for founders and investors.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Longevity Science Foundation — A foundation funding early-stage aging research, mentioned by the speaker.
  • Healthy Longevity Medicine Society — A society promoting healthy longevity medicine, co-created by LongeVC.
  • NIVC — A sister fund focusing on animal aging and health.
  • Aging and Drug Discovery Meeting — The conference where this talk was given, a key event in the longevity field.

95 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in information quantity and quality, reflecting the speaker's extensive experience and concrete data. The technical level is moderate, suitable for a general audience. The reliability is moderate due to the anecdotal nature of the evidence.

Reliability 6/10