I think the argument is that you can't prove impact without additionality. Most social value chains demonstrate Inputs > Activities > Outputs > Outcomes > Impact, where impact is what only happened because you were involved. Hard to prove that if every investor is trying to make the same deals (no additionality in Silicon Valley).

It seems like concerns around longer investment timeframes, lack of liquidity, and perceived risk around emerging markets/BoP customers are reasons angels/VCs aren't making more impact investments—and ways that impact investors can leverage their understanding of the field to make savvy deals traditional investors might miss. I haven't met many social entrepreneurs who would turn down an investment because of fears over "greed," unless there's a really serious difference in mindset.