2% of venture capital goes to solely women-founded start-ups. Same as in 2007.

I attended the Women’s Venture Summit last week (thanks for the hook-upCheryl Conte), and now I’m obsessed again with the 2%.

It’s one of those well-worn stats that every woman in the start-up ecosystem has heard: 2% of venture capital investment goes to companies founded solely by women.

Because I’m a data nerd I always make sure to point out: It is NOT that only 2% of women get funded. And it is NOT that only 2% of venture capital goes to companies with any women amongst its founders. We’re talking about companies founded solely by women. Like BlogHer was (three of us). Like Cheryl’s start-up Attentively was (two women), and like my most recent gig The Cru was (solo founder Tiffany Dufu).

Back in 2007 when BlogHer raised its Series A, the number was 2%. Today the latest figure remains 2%.

That is more than 15 years without moving that needle an inch, despite all the data in the world saying that diverse founding teams deliver better results.

Higher multiples. Better capital efficiency. And so on.

That link goes to a white paper my #forevercofounder Lisa Stone wrote when she was a partner at West River Group. She synthesized data from numerous studies by the biggest analysts. She did the work for all y’all.

I’ve been thinking about this number for ages, because after years of making the data argument I must admit defeat. And admit that the theoretically data-driven venture ecosystem does not, in fact, live and die by the data.

None of us do, if we’re being honest, because we’re human. It’s probably more accurate to say we live and die by our feelings.

What is to be done? What argument would be effective? Or do women of all ethnicities and people of color of all genders dedicate themselves to finding alternate pathways? Do you make the trade-off that sure, maybe you won’t be able to scale quite as fast or quite as big, but you won’t knock your head against the wall of a fortress that seems to clearly not want you there? I mean that’s where my thinking is, but I’m not trying to build something that requires significant capital investment right now.

So, I’ve been thinking of other modes of persuasion.

There’s the moral argument. As in, not only do you get better outcomes, but you get better karma, because it’s the right thing to do.

From what I’ve observed, the “do the right thing” argument results in existing venture firms creating “special,” segregated funds dedicated to under-served founders. And those funds are vested with but a fraction of the dollars of their regular funds. Separate but nowhere near equal.

And last week I started to wonder if we should try the maverick argument. Namely, every VC has the same data they don’t live by, so which of them has the guts, the keen insight, and the leadership quality to be the contrarian outlier who cuts through the old-school pattern matching that has resulted in the 2% figure to begin with and leaves the complacent, security-driven strategy of yesterday behind to grab for that brass ring of higher returns? I mean, I’d throw in “higher risk, but higher reward,” but the higher risk part isn’t even true.

I haven’t convinced myself. But hell, almost anything is worth a try.

What do you think? Does the maverick argument have legs? What will move this stubborn stubborn needle???? LMK what you think!