In the past few months, Rolling Funds by AngelList have been the talk of the town. Instead of having to raise a new fund every 2-3 years, fund managers can now continuously accept capital on a quarterly basis, where LPs (limited partners, like family offices or endowments or fund of funds (FoF)) typically invest with 1-2 year minimum commitments. Under the 506c designation, you can also publicly talk about your fundraise as a fund manager. Whereas the traditional Fund I typically took 11 months to fundraise for a single GP (general partner of a VC fund), 11.9 if multiple GPs, now with Rolling Funds, a fund manager can raise and invest out of a fund within a month – and as quick as starting with a tweet. AngelList will also:
Help you set up a website,
Verify accredited investors,
Help set up the fund (reducing legal fees),
And with rolling funds, you can invest as soon as the capital is committed per quarter, instead of waiting before a certain percentage of the whole fund is committed as per the usual 506b traditional funds.
Moreover, Rolling Funds, under the same 506c general solicitation rules, are built to scale. Both for the emerging fund manager playing the positive sum game of investing upstream as a participating investor, and for the experienced fund manager who’s leading Series A rounds. In the former example with the emerging fund manager, say a solo GP investing out of a $10M initial fund size, 20 checks of $250K, and 1:1 reserves. Or the latter, $50-100M/partner, writing $2-3M checks. Maybe up to $7-10M for a “hot deal“, which by its nature, are rare and few in between. In the words of Avlok Kohli, CEO of AngelList Venture, Rolling Funds are what funds would have looked like if they “were created in an age of software”.
I’m not gonna lie, Rolling Funds really are amazing. Given the bull case, what is the bear case? And how will that impact both emerging and experienced fund managers?
Humans are one of the most awe-inspiring creatures that have ever graced this planet. Even though we don’t have the sharpest claws or toughest skins nor can we innately survive -50 degrees Fahrenheit, we’ve crafted tools and environments to help us survive in brutal nature. But arguably, our greatest trait is that we’re capable of writing huge epics that transcend our individual abilities and contributions. And share these narratives to inspire not only ourselves but the fellow humans around us.
A member of the our proud race, founders are no different. They are some of the greatest forecasters out there. To use Garry Tan’s Babe Ruth analogy, founders have the potential of hitting a home run in the direction they point. They build worlds, universes, myths and realities that define the future. They live in the future using the tools of today. In fact, there’s a term for it. First used by Bud Tribble in 1981 to describe Steve Jobs’ aura when building the Macintosh – the reality distortion field.
Yet, we humans are all prone to anxiety. A story nonetheless. Simply, one we tell ourselves of the future that restricts our present self’s ability to operate effectively. Anxiety comes in many shapes and sizes. For founders, one of said anxieties is attempting and worrying about the future without addressing the reality today. In the early days, it’s attempting scale before achieving product-market fit (PMF). Building a skyscraper without surveying the land – land that may be quicksand or concrete.
Here are four signs – some may not be as intuitive as the others:
This week I revisited David Sacks’ essay Your Startup Is a Movement. It was first brought to my attention during my conversation with Yin Wu, founder of Pulley. And again, with a friend who recently jumped into venture after an operating career, particularly around the topic of our investment theses. Our conversation underscored his fourth point in his Movement Marketing playbook.
It’s much easier to compete in the market of one – the only one – than in a market to be the best one. As some VCs call it, companies that are “allergic to competition.”
Why?
The goal for any startup is to achieve product-market fit before your competitors, especially your incumbents, notice the market opportunity. Frankly, the incumbents have more cash, more talent, more resources, more in every regard except one… problem obsession. Insatiable desire to fundamentally change the way we live. And with that desire comes speed.
It reminds me of a time over a decade ago, right after the spectacular Olympics which put the greatest Olympian of all time on center stage. Our swim coach asked the team, “How do you beat Michael Phelps?”
A few of my teammates suggested we work longer and harder. Another suggested that we should’ve started younger. And another suggested we wait till he retired. But my coach responded, “Just don’t race against him in butterfly. Race him in breaststroke.” While Michael Phelps is by no means slow in breaststroke, still faster than 95% of swimmers out there in it, the theory holds. It’s the stroke one would have the best chance to beat him in. But what stood out to me most was what the wisecrack on the swim team shouted out as an answer.
“He can swim while I run.”
And he was right.
Another fascinating aspect I realized in hindsight was that no one suggested the question was impossible.
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!
Not long ago, I was asked: “Why do founders often fail as CEOs?” A rather provocative question. I wouldn’t go as far as to say founders often fail as CEOs as a blanket statement. Equally so, the question isn’t “why”, but “where”. People can “fail” in their positions for any number of reasons. “Why” is simply that they didn’t perform well under the expectations of the role. The better question comes down to “where” might they need to watch out for. Still so, there are many. But one that often catches founders by surprise is: the (in)ability to scale themselves with the company.
Founders often make great CEOs at the beginning. What I’ve seen and heard more of is the inability of founders to scale at the same pace as their company. As the company grows, the job description of the CEO changes as well. The same is true for all executive/leadership positions in a company. Something I personally love is at Shopify, every year the executives have to requalify for the position they hold, and that includes the CEO.
In the early stages, the CEO is a maker. They’re the most obsessed about the problem space. Their main job is to get the product to market. And test if it resonates. They get shit done. As the company scales (post product/market fit), the CEO is a manager. They’re no longer working on the daily/weekly updates of the product at a granular level, but making sure the entire organization functions as a well-oiled machine. How can the CEO enable their team members to be greater than the sum of their parts? To quote Paul Graham of Y Combinator, it’s the difference between the maker’s schedule and the manager’s schedule.
When you’re a small team of 5 or even 20, you’re the product lead. You decide the direction in which the product will go and you’re involved in the day-to-day nuances of the product itself, from the UI/UX to talking to customers to discover pain points, etc. When the company grows to 50 – give or take, you have already hired or are going to hire your first product manager, which means you won’t be involved in the day-to-day anymore, but rather in the larger strategic directions of the company and the product. As a maker, your decisions are tactical. On the other hand, as a manager, your decisions are strategic.
Similarly, Ben Horowitz, the second name in the investment firm, Andreessen Horowitz, wrote about peacetime and wartime CEOs. In the early days of a company, you’re at war. You’re selling; you’re networking. You’re fighting in a competitive market of attention. Not only from your customers, but also potential hires and investors. As your company scales past $100M ARR (among any of the other heuristics when you stop being a “startup”), you’re now a category leader and possibly a market leader as well. As the market leader in “peacetime”, you decide the rules of the game. You’re working to maintain your market position. You focus on the masses, and not the niches as much. And therefore, the job description of a leader born in an era of war is different from a leader born to maintain peace.
Many founding CEOs understand that their role will evolve over time, but unfortunately, many are still unable to keep up with the pace at which the company evolves. Effectively, CEOs have to always be one step ahead of the company’s growth to prepare the infrastructure for the rest of the team to grow into.
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!
Predictions are in season. It started back during the holidays. A number of my friends, colleagues and folks online have been making predictions of what is going to happen this year. And I’m sure some are sure to hit. Many to miss. Since I’ve been reasonably active on Quora and given my role in the startup community, many people have asked me: “What are some of the best startup ideas to start in 2021? In 2022?”
Over the past year, the pandemic became a forcing function for late majorities and laggards of the adoption curve to pick up newer social and technological trends. Subsequently, accelerating many timelines. Timelines that would have otherwise been realized two, three, maybe even five years out.
Social is back.
Consumer social has been back. The pandemic has saved on average 2-3 hours of travel time per day for the average worker, job-permitting. At the same time, quarantining has reduced, if not eliminated, many in-person interactions with friends. More time means people seek to find more places to place their attention.
Enterprise social is here. The pandemic has forced many businesses to go remote. Similarly, there’s been a migration away from metropolitan/urban areas to save on rent, as well as an opportunity to not be shackled by geography in the past few months. Now, as well as “post-pandemic”, businesses, as well as individuals, are looking for new ways to improve efficacy, communication, and culture at work. In efforts to both retain and attract talent.
Impact-driven and socially-responsible businesses are hot.
Diversity in the board room is gaining traction. And it’s created ripple effects in the financial world. LPs are demanding venture funds to invest in diverse founders. At the same time, when diverse founders consider which investors to bring on, they look at if the checkwriters at the firm are diverse. Some investors have acted proactively; some reactively. Nevertheless, the cogs are moving.
E-commerce, entertainment, streaming, gaming, remote tools, edtech are all up.
SPACs and 2020’s string of IPOs have created many “overnight” millionaires.
Investing in the stock market, in alternative assets, in syndicates, and more mean more capital is being recycled back into the economy at various stages.
There is more capital available at the early stages. New angels. More startups. Just like pre-seed/seed is the Series A from a decade ago, more institutional investors will move upstream. Who knows, there may be a pre-pre-pre-seed round one day.
Innovation around the home office space is building momentum.
Unsurprisingly, Zoom fatigue is real, which will only led a hand in hybrid work-life models post-pandemic. Equally so, innovation around virtual meetings is only a matter of time.
Oculus brought down the price of a VR headset to be as much as a video game console, which means more people can and will adopt VR. Leading to larger markets and more diverse consumers for VR/AR. More startups.
Mental health has taken center stage, where it had previously been overlooked or disregarded.
When will the pandemic end? I don’t know.
When will we get vaccines? While experts have given us an expected date, I also don’t know.
When will “normal” return? I’m willing to bet it’s on the magnitude of years rather than months. Then again, will “normal” ever return? I might be completely wrong, but I’m willing to bet the “normal” we knew will never return. But instead, we’ll have a normal 2.0.
In truth, I can only answer what I see in my very narrow periphery. And by definition, there are a hundred-fold more that are in my blind side. And the thing is, what I’ve thought of I guarantee many other founders have already seen, tried, or are trying. What I’m looking for this year, and every year, is what I haven’t thought of yet. But when I hear and see it, it’ll click. Everything I know will make sense.
Investors are lagging indicators of innovation.
Founders are the leading indicators. Listen to them.
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!
Last week, I was lucky enough to jump on a call with the founder of Pulley, Yin Wu. Backed some of the best investors out there including Stripe, General Catalyst, YC, Elad Gil, just to name a few, Pulley is the ultimate tool for cap table management. In addition, Yin is a 4-peat founder, one of which led to an acquisition by Microsoft, and three of which, including Pulley, went through YC.
In our conversation, we covered many things, but one particular theme stood out to me the most: how she built a culture of ruthless prioritization.
Proportionally speaking, I rarely make referrals and intros. Numerically speaking, I set up more intros than the average person. Frankly, if I made every intro that people have asked of me, I’d be out of social capital. It’s not to say I’m never willing to spend or risk my social capital. And I do so more frequently than most people might find comfortable. In fact, the baseline requirement for my job is to be able to put my neck on the line for the startups I’m recommending. The other side of the coin is that I’ve made more than a few poor calls in my career so far. That is to say, I’m not perfect.
I only set up intros if I can see a win-win scenario. A win for the person who wants to get introduced. And a win for the person they will be introduced to. The clearer I can see it, the easier the intro is to make. The less I can, the more I look for proxies of what could be one.
This largely has been my framework for introducing founders to investors, as well as potential hires, partners, and clients. Over the years, I realized that I’ve also been using the same for people who would like an intro to someone above their weight class.
Below I’ll share the 4 traits – not mutually exclusive – of what I look for in world-class founders.
I’ve recommended in a number of essays on this blog the importance of founder-investor fit. That founders should always do their diligence on potential investors, like here and here. And for a more robust understanding, asking founders in their current and previous portfolio, specifically the ones that didn’t work out. Some of my favorite questions for (ex-)portfolio founders:
How has [insert name] been helpful for you in your founder journey?
What was [insert name]‘s involvement like when shit hit the fan? Do you remember specific examples?
If you were to build another company (if applicable), would you work with [insert name] again?
If they are building another company in a relevant field, and if they say “yes”: Why haven’t you?
What are scenarios in which you would, and ones you wouldn’t?
Then think to yourself, were those pieces of advice actionable? Did the context help or detract from your initial disposition? Your goal isn’t to point fingers, but to paint a more holistic picture of who you might be working with closely for the long haul.
The best investors can inspire founders to think on wavelengths they might not have considered before. Some may hurt when you first hear them, but if your investors truly care, they mean well. The only reason the truth hurts is because it is the truth. And it’s your job as the founder to do your best to fix it.
The red herring
When a founder responds to the above questions with, “X investor just spent less time with us”, it’s not enough to say that an investor isn’t great.
Each VC always has his/her first and foremost duty and responsibility to the partnership. By simple economics, most of their investments won’t work out. Investors generally understand that they have to:
Spend more time with the winners ’cause they’ll return the fund (and then some, hopefully),
And cap their time commitment with the ones who won’t return the fund.
While that isn’t an excuse for VCs to only focus on maximizing returns (i.e. selling your IP, forcing an acquisition, unjustly firing the founder), it is something that founders should keep in mind. When you raise venture funding, just be aware of the fact that investors need to prioritize their time, especially when the going gets tough. And while it is usually implicit in the investment, a great investor/board member will often have that conversation explicitly with you at the beginning.
This notion, on the other hand, contrasts with angel investors, who are often investing out of their own net worth. So the dynamics, as well as commitment level, for angels is different. Angels often have between tens to hundreds of active investments at a time, meaning their time allocation per startup is much more limited than a VC. For context, a VC is usually actively involved in 3-7 investments at a time, meaning they’re going to be more involved per startup.
In closing
At the end of the day, the world of entrepreneurship, and business more broadly, is a relationship-building industry. And it’s extremely hard for an investor to build great relationships and a reputation if they have a track record of burning bridges. With founders. Even other investors – downstream and upstream.
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!
In the past year, largely due to the pandemic, it’s been easier than ever to create a business from anywhere in the world. Zoom for calls and meetings. Slack for asynchronous communication. Upwork for gigs. Stripe Atlas for starting a business. Notion for knowledge hubs. As long as you have a stable connection to the internet, geography no longer matters.
Additionally, major US startup hubs (i.e. SF Bay Area, NYC, Seattle, etc.) exhibit a lot of noise, and it becomes harder to discern the the signal among the noise. In the past few years, there’s been an influx of talent from across the world into these hubs. Despite the diversity of backgrounds into this 7 million strong hub, most tech entrepreneurs are stuck in the same modality of thinking. When you’re surrounded by similar personalities who gravitate towards the models that have succeeded already, you’re only going to get more of the same. It’s part of the reason why even seasoned founders with exits under their belt, still go back to startup accelerators, incubators and fellowships. They’re looking for fresh ideas not just on product, but also on business models and culture and more, that fresh blood into the industry brings.
These hubs are bubbles for a reason. I only feel qualified enough to speak on the Bay Area, where I call home now. One of Silicon Valley’s claims to fame is that we’re in a bubble, and we know we’re in a bubble. Because of that, many of the best startup founders know that their initial beachhead – their beta audience – is not here, unless your customers are tech companies, tech meetups, or coffee connoisseurs.
In venture, there have traditionally been three considerations when deciding your geographical playing field:
Move to where your customers are
Move to where your talent is
And, move to where your capital is
And in that priority. Customers > talent > capital. I work in an ecosystem that has long perpetuated talent = capital > customers. One of the best lessons from the pandemic is that the “talent = capital > customers” function isn’t necessarily true, and that it was a product of the noise – the FOMO – that exists in the Bay. Equally so, talent in the Bay, as well as other major tech hubs, are incredibly expensive. While there’s a theme of “talent is on a discount” during COVID, it is still wildly more expensive than other parts of the world. Not only talent, but also real estate, social and professional networks, capital (yes getting money is more expensive), and the market for attention (more on that, here and here). And arguably, the same quality in many other lesser known geographic regions.
While I’m not saying every entrepreneur that has moved their HQ has gone to where their customers are, the remote work lifestyle has set precedent for many companies to rethink what they thought they knew and what they now know. With robust remote tools, like Zoom and Slack, I believe we’ll continue to challenge our understanding of what normal is. And when most companies resume a hybrid model post-COVID, I’m curious as to the emergence of new talent hubs (or maybe the lack thereof) across the world.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
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!
I wrote an essay exactly a week ago about welcoming tough founder narratives. In it, the prerequisite to play in VC is to be open-minded – to “stay positive” and to “test negative”. I’m reminded of something Tim Ferriss shared in his recent interview with Jim Collins, “It is not that beauty is hard to find, it’s that it is easy to overlook.”
In a world where it is my job to evaluate people who stretch the margins – to stretch “common sense”, it’s easy to be cynical. On the same token, it’s also easy to be incredibly optimistic. As Blake Robbins of Ludlow Venturesputs it, “the best venture capitalists [are] able to perfectly toe the line of optimist vs. pessimist.”
Since then, partly due to the semi-recent influx of investment talks I’ve seen and been a part of – the holiday mad dash, if you will, I’ve had some time to myself to re-center my purpose in the venture world.
The role of an investor
As someone on the investing side of the table, it is our job to check founders’ blind sides. To consider things they may not be aware to even consider. Drawing parallels between seemingly orthogonal parts of the business that we know because we’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands of businesses. For example, if you’re creating a plug-and-play solution – a product whose main selling point is its ease of use, the more you have to spend on your customer success team, the less effective your product is.
Of course, we merely provide insight and context to a situation, but it is the founders who have the final say.
The brand of an investor
Craig Thomas, an LP, wrote on his Substack last month: “Brand is arguably the only thing that resembles a moat in traditional venture capital.” To summarize Nikhil Basu Trivedi words briefly, brand here is constructed by how strong the synergy between the various forms of acquisition channels (i.e. content, performance marketing/ads, virality/word-of-mouth) and the players in the ecosystem (i.e. founders, investors, LPs, operators, talent, etc.) are. In simpler terms, brand is about who knows and how well they know what you stand for.
Increasingly, in the world of venture, while “picking” the right investments via conviction and a thesis still matters, it’s becoming a world of VCs “getting picked“, as Fred Destin of Stride.VC tweets. This is especially true for the deals that investors expected outsized returns on – effectively, uncapped upside.
Craig provides a great graphic for why brand matters. The blue-dotted line, which he calls the Mendoza Line for VC firms, represents y = x + b. And the best VC firms have b’s where b > 1.
He points out that the fallacy here is when firms prematurely scale. Increasing their AUM (assets under management) before establishing and growing their brand. And it’s something I’m not keen on falling for.
Seen in another light, Correlation Ventures did a study that found almost 65% of venture-backed deals fail to return on investment. And only 4% make outsized “magical returns”. Proving that b > 1 is truly easier said than done.
There’s a saying in venture: Luck only gets better with success. It’s largely described in the context that it only takes one epic investment to get you on the radar. And I believe building a successful brand is a leading indicator of success. Of course, having a strong brand and having outsized returns are not mutually exclusive either. In a 2015 Medium post, Blake quotes Brett deMarrais of Ludlow Ventures, which I think acutely sums up what it means to be a great investor. “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.”
As you might have guessed, I’m on the brand-building phase. Craig wrote: “Brand is reputation and access.” A great brand leads to better deal flow, which leads strong signals for downstream investors. Which leads to a stronger brand. Analogized, it’s what Reid Hoffman has said all these years: “a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As an investor, a VC is their own product.
In closing
To quote Ruben Harris’ first boss in Ruben’s recent interview with Garry Tan, “To become a billionaire, help a billion people.” Through a mutual friend, I first met Ruben, Artur, and Timur back in ’18 around the inception of Career Karma and when they were hosting office hours at their apartment for folks who wanted to break into tech. At the inflection point in my career, I went to one of these to meet the individuals I had only been communicating over emails with. And within 5 minutes, Ruben said: “Here’s who you’ve got to talk to…”. And gave me 2 names I hadn’t even considered reaching out to beforehand. Both ended up being great influences on my growth.
True to their mission, even prior to the founding of Career Karma, they’ve been playing the connective tissue between talent, education and occupation. From their podcast to their company, the triple threat have created an impressive brand and community of givers and hustlers. And I highly recommend checking out their podcast to hear some of their community’s stories. Here’s one of my favorites. Congratulations on your A led by Initialized, Ruben, Artur, and Timur!
Similarly, that’s the investor I’m working to be. While I still have miles more to go in building a brand, I believe I’m taking steps in the right direction.
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!
