Spikes, bumps, dents, cavities

hedgehog, spiky

A couple LPs and I were discussing the GPs we met this week. All who spend most of their time looking at emerging venture managers. Well itโ€™s RAISE week, so everythingโ€™s hot in SF. Except the weather. Heat wave was last week. And as we were trading notes, and do note, this is highly anecdotalโ€ฆ 50% of GPs mentioned were very quick passes. In fact at some of the network-y events, LPs were trying to help each other get out of conversations with certain GPs. But thatโ€™s to no surprise, the same is true for many VC-founder events. About 40% of GPs mentioned felt good enough for us to continue the conversation, but not enough for any of us (assuming we didnโ€™t know them already) to take next steps with them. And 10%, maybe less, were worth further conversations. Some of my friends reading this may claim less in the last cohort.

Do note, almost every LP who came into town this week, asked the local LPs or just each other, who are the 1-2 GPs they have to meet. So every LP, minus opportunistic chats, knew exactly who they wanted to meet before the week started.

All that to say, there were enough strong candidates for LP capital around this week. There are more well-rounded GPs in markets than ever before. Folks with classic venture training, enduring relationships, and/or founding experiences. Rewind 15 years prior, most of these folks would have been great GPs and potentially household names too. Theyโ€™re highly responsive. Theyโ€™ve got a good track record. Founders like them, and for the most part, they do try to be helpful as early as possible and as much as possible. They donโ€™t pretend to be someone theyโ€™re not (there are plenty still who do). Theyโ€™re well-connected to downstream capital, customers and/or talent. And in their niche, they have a lot of trust. And some of them have even been historically great fiduciaries of capital (i.e. comms, exiting positions, etc.).

But in Q4 2026 (yes itโ€™s Q4 already), theyโ€™re just good (not great) in a lot of LPโ€™s eyes.

Another thing Iโ€™ve noticed is that when LPs introduce GPs theyโ€™ve invested in to me that they like, thereโ€™s always a story. A very specific incident where everything clicked. One thing a GP is known for that makes them unforgettable that no one else has. Something small that sparked that upon continued exposure compounds again and again and still something most GPs donโ€™t have.

And I canโ€™t help but think about spikiness.

Spikiness is memorability.

In one instance, a friend and I were discussing a GP that I passed on before, but he thought was interesting. The conclusion was that this GP will most likely be a top quartile GP, but she didnโ€™t have an obvious edge. My friend said that he thought she was interesting because she had a โ€œsubtle edge.โ€

A bump, if I might translate for a second.

Are bumps enough? Is that enough to attract the best founders? Do bumps matter more than spikes after a certain AUM? Are spikes no longer as valuable past a certain AUM?

To define some terms really quickly:

  • Spikes are edges. Absolute advantages. What youโ€™re known for that very few other people are known for. What you can do that no one else can do. And that youโ€™re in the top 0.0001%.
  • Bumps are comparative advantages. May not be unfair, but you are better than at least half of your competition. Potentially top quartile.
  • Dents are comparative disadvantages.
  • Cavities are absolute disadvantages.

While many LPs will have different answers to the above, with respect to emerging managers, a common thread seems to be that:

  • LPs like spiky GPs with no dents and no cavities. These GPs admittedly donโ€™t exist. Or at least I havenโ€™t come across.
  • So instead, LPs like spiky GPs with dents, but no cavities.
  • But they will take spiky GPs with cavities as long as the cavities donโ€™t handicap their ability to create outsized returns.
  • LPs hesitate on investing in bumpy GPs with no spikes. Even if they have dents and no cavities.
  • LPs run away from GPs with cavities but no spikes or bumps.

And of course, the observations above come in lieu of track record and referenceable relationships that are easier for many allocators to underwrite.

Photo by assaf kakoon on Unsplash


Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Curiosity before Retention

curiosity, curious, owl

My buddy recently asked me to give some advice to an early-stage consumer social company. And the company asked if they should focus on growth or retention first. Both are equally as important for a business designed for venture growth.

If you only focus completely on growth, you’re going to have a leaky bucket. We saw this with many of the AI applications that launched in the last few years. Image generation. Video generation. App building. The quality of the product makes the product go viral. Everyone uses it. Then when the next higher quality product comes, they move. Either that, or the one week free wasn’t enough for people to use it beyond casually.

If you focus completely on retention, you have mom and dad and friends using your product, but depending on how much runway you have, may not be able to sustain the business nor attract investors.

And given the short(ish) runway of the company, I told them to focus 80% of their time and energy on growth first to attract investor dollars, but build with the remaining 20% for retention mechanics in the background.

Without getting too specific on the exact company and the exact steps they are taking, first step, get people on the platform, and the only metric outside of growth you should be optimizing for is the login the day after (24 hours later). In the meantime, build notification and engagement mechanisms following the Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve intervals. 2 hours. 24 hours. 3 days. 7 days. 30 days. And 90 days. Moving short term memory to the long-term memory bank.

The notification system, moreover, should activate at least one, but ideally two of George Loewenstein’s five triggers to curiosity.

  1. Novelty โ€” Access to information known to others
  2. Partial exposure โ€” Reminders of something forgotten, but also “insider gossip”
  3. Complexity โ€” Questions and riddles
  4. Uncertainty โ€” Unknown resolutions
  5. Conflict โ€” Violated expectations.

If people have enough reasons to come back to the platform, at some point, it’ll become muscle memory.

Photo by Josh Mills on Unsplash


Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

LPs Judging Each Other

gavel, judge

I had a conversation with both a family office and a fund-of-funds this week about the same topic. All of us at a high level agree on the premise of it (with nuances at the edges). And within 24 hours of each other, so I now feel compelled to write about it.

There are four sets of GPs we come across as LPs.

  1. GPs we love and end up backing
  2. GPs we think are really interesting, but for whatever reason, choose to wait and track
  3. GPs we pass on really quickly
  4. And, GPs we, unfortunately, because the stars donโ€™t align (or whatever the horoscope folks say, when Jupiter meets Neptune or Mars is in retrogradeโ€ฆ clearly not a astrologist), fail to give any respectable attention to, and never even began to dig in at all.

The last one is unfortunate. Truly. But it happens. A stray LinkedIn message. An email that slips through the inbox. A chance meeting at an event with no follow up.

Now this post is about judging.

Not all LPs see eye-to-eye on investments. Sometimes Iโ€™ll find a GP particularly fascinating, and my peer wonโ€™t see the same brilliance. And vice versa. But most of us do agree, to some extent, that the sum of our first set of GPs (ones we invest in) and our second set of GPs (ones weโ€™re tracking but didnโ€™t invest in) is roughly the same as each other’s. In other words, if another LP I respect has invested in a fund that I didn’t, I am most likely tracking that fund. And even though another LP friend may not invest in the same funds that I do, they are most likely tracking the GPs I’ve invested in. What’s good enough to invest for one LP is good enough to invest to track for another.

What raises the eyebrow is usually coming across an LP who has a consistent track record of investing in funds that you yourself pass on rather quickly. The third set of GPs. One, maybe two, fine. It happens. You may have missed something when skimming quickly. But if there are three or more GPs in one’s own third set but in another LP’s first set, one starts questioning their judgment. And it seems that the family office LP and the fund-of-funds manager also agree.

One caveat to note… this only really applies to LPs who primarily focus on venture. The unfortunate circumstance of LPs who don’t focus only on venture is that given limited bandwidth, they’re likely to have a lot more GPs in a given asset class in the third camp than LPs who only focus on one asset class.


Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.