One number appears repeatedly in Alessio Vinassa’s current biography.
Forty.
His website says he has backed more than 40 ventures across cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, Web3 and innovative finance. His expertise page makes essentially the same claim, describing him as an active angel investor who has backed more than 40 ventures.
That sounds impressive. It also raises a fairly basic question.
Which 40?
I started looking for the answer because an investment track record is normally one of the easiest things for an investor to demonstrate. If someone has backed dozens of companies, there should usually be some combination of portfolio companies, founder announcements, investment databases, corporate records, funding announcements or other evidence showing where that capital went.
What I found was more complicated.
The claim is clearly being made. What is much harder to find is a public portfolio that allows an outside reader to verify the 40-plus ventures individually.
That does not mean the investments did not happen. Private angel investments are often confidential, and an investor may have reasons not to disclose every company they backed. But if the number is being used as an important part of someone’s public credentials, it is reasonable to ask for more detail.
What Vinassa says about his investment history
Vinassa’s current website presents a career spanning more than 15 years across cybersecurity, AI, Web3 and innovative finance. It describes him as someone who has built ventures, backed founders and invested across several technology sectors.
The newer material goes further. A September 2026 announcement distributed through Chainwire again says Vinassa has backed more than 40 ventures across cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, Web3 and innovative finance.
The claim therefore isn’t buried somewhere in an old biography.
It remains part of his current positioning as an investor.
That makes identifying the underlying portfolio particularly relevant.
There are some pieces of evidence
The public record is not completely empty.
One interesting example comes from a UNIGATE investor presentation from around 2022. The presentation identified Alessio Vinassa as a business development adviser and founder of Protocol33. More importantly, it stated that he had been involved in the FinTech and blockchain sector since 2013 and had been a VC investor in more than 15 blockchain projects.
That is useful because it gives us an older version of the investment claim.
It also shows that Vinassa was publicly presenting himself as an investor in blockchain projects well before the current AI-focused branding.
But even here, the presentation does not provide a list of those 15-plus projects.
So we have a number, but not the portfolio behind the number.
There are also business databases such as Crunchbase that identify Vinassa as having founded two organizations and describe his activities across areas including Web3, cybersecurity, real estate and gaming.
Again, that is useful background, but it is not the same thing as a verified list of 40 investments.
This is where the gap becomes interesting
If someone tells you they have backed 40 startups, there are several ways to verify the claim.
You can look at the companies.
You can look at funding announcements.
You can look at the investor sections of company websites.
You can look at founder interviews.
You can look at corporate filings where available.
You can look at investment databases.
You can look for announcements made when the investment happened.
With Vinassa, some of those trails exist, particularly around his earlier involvement in blockchain and cryptocurrency businesses.
But I have not found a publicly available portfolio on his current website that names all 40-plus ventures.
That is the part I find interesting.
The number is specific enough to sound like a measurable investment record, but the supporting portfolio is not equally visible.
The older crypto investments complicate the picture
There is another reason I think this claim deserves scrutiny.
Some of the businesses that appear in the wider history surrounding Vinassa are cryptocurrency projects that later attracted significant criticism or regulatory attention.
Lira Coin, WeWe Global, LyoFI, LyoPay, LFI, The Blockchain Era and Xera all appear in the broader investigation into his business history. However, the existence of an association with Vinassa does not automatically establish that he personally invested in every one of those companies.
That distinction is important.
If Vinassa invested in one of these companies as an angel investor, that is different from founding it.
If he advised a company, that is different from owning it.
If his company provided services to it, that is different from investing in it.
And if someone merely alleges that he was behind a company, that is different again.
A proper portfolio should therefore tell us exactly what the relationship was.
Investor?
Founder?
Adviser?
Shareholder?
Executive?
Service provider?
Or simply someone whose name appeared around the project?
Without that information, putting every company into one “portfolio” would create a misleading picture.
The current AI and cybersecurity portfolio is even less visible
The newest version of Vinassa’s investment story focuses heavily on AI and cybersecurity.
His current website says he has backed ventures across those sectors as well as Web3 and innovative finance.
A September 2026 announcement similarly describes his current investment framework as focusing on the intersection of AI and cybersecurity.
https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/newsroom/alessio-vinassa-how-ai-reshaping-leadership
But again, the public material I found does not provide a complete list of the companies supposedly making up the 40-plus portfolio.
This creates a simple research opportunity.
If these investments exist, identify them.
If some are confidential, explain how many cannot be disclosed.
If some investments were made through holding companies or funds, identify those vehicles.
If the number includes companies where Vinassa was an adviser rather than an investor, make that distinction.
That would make the claim much easier to understand.
What I would not conclude
I do not think it is responsible to say that the “40+ ventures” claim is fabricated simply because I cannot find a public list of all 40.
That would be an argument from absence.
Private investments can remain private. Some early-stage companies never receive significant media coverage. Some investment agreements contain confidentiality provisions. And not every angel investor publishes their entire portfolio.
At the same time, the opposite conclusion would be just as weak.
The fact that Vinassa’s website says he backed more than 40 ventures does not independently verify the number.
A biography is a source for what someone claims about themselves. It is not automatically independent evidence of the underlying claim.
That is the distinction I think readers should keep in mind.
So which companies did he actually back?
At this point, the honest answer is that the public record I could verify does not give us a complete 40-company portfolio.
There is evidence of Vinassa publicly describing himself as an investor in blockchain projects, including the older UNIGATE presentation’s claim of more than 15 blockchain investments. His current website now expands that claim to more than 40 ventures across several technology sectors.
But the names behind the current number are not clearly disclosed in one publicly accessible portfolio.
And that is the question I would like answered.
Not because 40 is impossible.
Not because private investments must all be public.
But because if “40+ ventures” is being used to establish credibility as a serious angel investor, investors and readers should be able to understand what that track record actually consists of.
How many were successful?
How many failed?
How much capital was invested?
Which companies exited?
Which are still operating?
How many were blockchain projects?
How many are AI companies?
How many were founded by Vinassa himself?
And how many were simply companies he advised or worked with?
Those details would tell us far more than the number 40 ever could.
For now, the 40-plus figure remains a claim made prominently by Vinassa about his own investment history, with only a limited portion of the underlying portfolio publicly identifiable from the sources I could verify.
That does
