Pearmane Capital is the directory's only investor entry, and it is here for a specific editorial reason: there are not many small funds with an explicit Web4 mandate, and Pearmane's portfolio construction is one of the few real proxies the Bulletin has for whether the category is structurally investable yet.

The fund is anchored by a Singapore family office and runs out of a single office at Raffles Place. The managing partner, Hua Lien Pearmane, has been visible in Asian operator circles for the last two cycles. The fund's stated mandate is Web4-only: agentic infrastructure, autonomous services, operating-system patterns for AI. Pearmane is unusual in three specific ways.

First, the fund refuses to write checks into pre-product teams. This is not the dominant pattern in early-stage AI right now, where storied teams with no shipped product can close rounds on reputation. Pearmane's published criteria include "the product is live, accepting accounts, and we can use it" as a hard gate. That is a small-fund move — the math doesn't work at venture scale — but the Bulletin has flagged it as one of the structural reasons Pearmane's portfolio looks different from larger Web4-curious funds.

Second, the fund has published a public thesis. Pearmane releases a quarterly note that argues, in unusually direct prose, what the partnership believes about the next eighteen months of the Web4 category. The notes are short. They are signed. They sometimes contain market opinions that the partnership later turns out to be wrong about, and Pearmane has been willing to say so in the next quarter's note. The Bulletin has cited these notes more often than any other capital-side writing in our coverage, because they read as positions rather than promotion.

Third, the fund prefers operator-led rounds. Several of the directory's company entries — entries we do not name here, but which a reader of the Bulletin's archive can probably identify — have either taken a check from Pearmane or declined one. The fund's preference for operator-led companies is a structural bet on the same archetype the Bulletin tracks editorially, and the overlap is, in our view, not a coincidence. Pearmane reads as if it were assembled by an operator rather than by a venture firm.

What the Bulletin cannot yet evaluate, and what we note here, is performance. The fund is young. None of its first-cohort companies have had a meaningful exit yet, and only a few have reached the kind of revenue scale that would make a directory entry obvious. The Bulletin's editorial position is that Pearmane is worth tracking because it is one of the only investors writing publicly under a Web4-shaped frame, and because that public posture is creating a small, useful set of public artifacts — the quarterly notes — that the category needs more of.

We expect Pearmane's role in the directory to evolve. If the fund grows or rotates its mandate away from Web4, we will say so. If it disappears, we will note that too. For now, the directory entry exists because the Bulletin's commitment to track the structural elements of the Web4 thesis includes the capital structure, and Pearmane is the cleanest example of it we have.