There’s a notion in the venture market that LPs typically dislike GPs writing discovery checks. Though I’ve written about VCs writing more discovery checks (here and here) in the past two years, discovery checks have often been a function of investor FOMO (fear of missing out) and not playing their core game. The returns of any established fund are largely realized on big checks with ownership targets.
Of course, rolling funds, micro-VCs, and angels optimize for a different game. They’re spreading their net thinner, but also leveraging their relationships to get into oversubscribed rounds or putting really small bets into hopefuls. Proportionally speaking, if they make bad bets, they lose the same percentage of money, but on an absolute dollar amount, they lose far less. And, well, it’s much easier to return a $1M fund than a $100M fund. It’s also far less committal for LPs to invest in a small fund than a big fund intended to make their incredible returns. The small fund is the bet. The large fund for an LP is the money-making machine.
I was talking with a Venture Partner of a name-brand accelerator yesterday, and he offered a second perspective.
The reason discovery checks by larger funds don’t make any money is because it’s irregular and inconsistent. There often is no fund strategy behind it. That said, if you make discovery checks your core business, that means a fundamentally different strategy. Is that strategy consistent, predictable, and scalable? For accelerators, they’ve made writing discovery checks part of their fund strategy. Their game, at the end of the day, is “buying options.”
It’s a call option. Accelerators invest $100K for 5-10% to buy the rights for the next round. The money is being made in the follow-on, not on the initial bet. And if there’s a fund strategy to deploy 100 checks of a $100K, there’s a systematic approach to writing discovery checks. This is why many accelerators include a provision for pro rata of $0.5-1M in a future round. And they’re unwilling to budge on that, even if a founder comes back and wants to seed that allocation to downstream investors.
Why would an entrepreneur take the $100K that comes with the $500K-$1M option down the road? Accelerators and a lot of angel funds out there are willing to write you, the founder, the check faster and with less debate than other investors on the market.
There’s also a reason many accelerators focus on software rather than other potential areas of investment. A $100K check will get you much further for an asset-lite software company than a deep tech or hardware company. The same amount of cash can bring a software company to market, while a hardware company stays in R&D.
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!
Charles Hudson at Precursor told Monique Woodward of Cake Ventures, when she was first raising, “You’re not just raising for Fund I; you’re raising for the first three funds. And act accordingly.” In other words, build long-term relationships. As someone who lives and breathes in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, it’s about giving first. There are many things I have yet to do, but are on my life’s roadmap. And given my humble, but curious beginnings, two of the greatest gifts I can give right now at this point in my career, are:
Time
Valuable connections
… which led me to be a scout years ago. Or as the folks at Techstars say, give first. On a similar wavelength, one of my mentor figures told me when I first jumped into venture, “Think three careers in advance.” You’re laying the groundwork for your future success. Or, as I have sometimes heard it described, the tailwind of your 10-year overnight success.
I try to be helpful to everyone who takes time out of their day to talk to me – be it outbound or inbound. Of course, over time, it’s been much harder for me to meaningfully add value to every person who comes my way. Though my blog is one way to scale and share my knowledge capital, I’m always looking for new ways. So if anyone has any recommendations, I’m all ears. After all, I’m still in my first inning.
Want to get the latest CoZ insights?
Fast, Simple, Awesome
In the theme of scaling myself, I recently shared with the fellows in our VC fellowship about my workflow as a scout. And, I thought it’d be just as valuable to you my readers as well.
I find myself living in my inbox for at least 3-4 hours a day, with hundreds of email chains by the end of the week. What I needed most was operational efficiency. And, at the end of the day, efficiency is results divided by your efforts.
E = Result/Effort
First things first, tune your email settings, which I first picked up from Blake Robbins‘ blog:
If you have more than one inbox, enable multiple inboxes.
Enable compact view versus default view.
Enable keyboard shortcuts.
The only ones you really need are: E to archive, V to move an email
Enable auto-advance. So that you move on to the next email automatically after performing an action on the previous.
Then, the best thing is you only need three folders: Action Needed, Read Later, and Pending Response.
For any email that takes longer than a minute or two to reply, it goes in the Action Needed folder, like long-form advice/feedback or being stalled by waiting on a reply for a double-opt in. When my day frees up a bit more, usually later in the day, I revisit this folder to address all the other action items.
Read Later includes the mountain of blogs, newsletters, news outlets I’ve subscribed to, but didn’t have time to start reading until later in the day. Occasionally, it includes a founder’s monthly investor update. For the latter, I usually just scroll straight to the asks and see if I can help or not. If not, I read and move on.
For the emails I send out but expect a response in return, Pending Response is the perfect folder for that. This next part is completely optional. But, under the Nudges category, enable Suggest emails to follow up on. Because of Google’s algorithm, it can occasionally end up adding to the clutter when it surfaces up an email that doesn’t need to be followed up on. But if that’s the case, it goes straight into the archive folder.
And yes, for everything else, that don’t go in the above three folders, goes into Archives.
I used to have a million and one folders for startups, jobs, VCs, events, saved articles/newsletters, and more. Which looks great when you’re organizing material and when the inbox search algorithm wasn’t as great as it is now, but it doesn’t speed up the workflow. In fact, it often slowed me down – as I tried to put items in the appropriate folder before responding to my next email. And sometimes, they fit in multiple folders.
For mobile, the only thing you need to change are the Mail swipe actions. Swipe right to archive. And swipe left to Move to [folder].
You can either do the above, or use Superhuman, which has all the above functions. The faster I can get back to people who need my help, the better. Whether it’s me, or someone smarter than me, I try to point founders in the right direction.
Tracking the data
Separately, on an excel sheet, though I don’t track every startup I talk to, I track deals I refer/intro, with the following columns:
Startup
Founder(s)
Date
Stage
Industry
Deck [link]
Referral Source
Who’d I refer to
Secret Sauce – Differentiator/Reason for referral
Result of referral (Pending, Talking, Rejected, Invested, Will revisit)
Date of action [result of referral]
Check size (if applicable)
Round size (if applicable)
I also color-code so that’s it’s easier on the eyes. With the above, I can track:
Most intros/investments/rejections, by:
Industry
Partner
Stage
Referral source
Response Rate
Average Time:
Between intro and investment, per VC
Between intro and conversation
Average check size (per fiscal year)
Average round rise (per fiscal year)
% breakdown by types of compensation
% referral sources from founders who successfully fundraised (via me)
Founders who didn’t successfully fundraise (via me)
In closing
As one of my favorite VC quotes go: “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” I’ve had the fortune of working with some amazing founders over the years – a number of them who I was never able to help with the limitations of my own knowledge, but through the people I sent them to. Luckily, I largely attribute to my ability to help founders quickly through the above workflow. Hopefully, it can be as useful to you as it has been for me.
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!
Though I’ve spent a minute in venture capital, I’ve never raised a fund. So I’m not going to pretend I know everything. Because I don’t. Every single idea here is one I’ve borrowed from someone with more miles on their odometer in this industry.
When does an emerging fund manager turn into an emerged fund manager? I’ve always heard the general rule of thumb is by Fund III. But in all honesty, I took that for granted and never knew why.
“The other [successful trait in fund managers] that we see a lot of is really having a defined strategy, and really sticking to it and executing on it. Straying away from your strategy is one of the best ways to create issues for you down the road. Yes, it might be successful and it might create returns for you today, but it will create difficulties down the road when you’re looking to raise that next fund. Because that’s what you’re selling to me at the end of the day.
“Fund I, basically what you’re selling is a promise. You’re selling a dream. You’re selling the concept around the strategy.
“Fund II, you’re selling the execution on that strategy. Depending at what stage you’re investing at, for the most part, you’re not going to have returns to be pointing to. You’re going to be selling your ability to execute on that strategy.
“Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.”
Samir then follows up: “Fund III’s are the hardest [to raise] because by then, it’s four, five, six years in and you have to show something. It is return-based.”
Phil Libin, co-founder and CEO of All Turtles, mmhmm, and Evernote, and former Managing Director at General Catalyst, in his recent interview with Tyler Swartz, said: “We don’t need scale to make a good product, in fact, it’s a distraction if you focus on scale prematurely.” In venture, your fund is your product. And like an entrepreneur, an emerging manager shouldn’t worry about scaling the size of their fund in the Fund I and II days. Stay small. Focus on delivering on the strategy and promise you made to your LPs. After all, it’s much easier to return a $10M fund than it is to return a $100M fund. Especially since a 3-5x multiple means you’re just average these days. As Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate says, “Your fund size is your strategy.”
By the time you get to Fund III, you now have a track record of financial return (or not). And by then, you and the market should have a good idea if you have a longer time horizon in venture or not.
And even if not, many former VCs go back to the operating side of the table, armed with the knowledge, skills, and relationships they gain on the VC side.
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 amazing Paul “PG” Graham came out with an essay this month on crazy new ideas. And the thing I’ve learned over the years, being in Silicon Valley, is if PG writes, you read. In it, one section in particular stood out:
“Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they’re proposed by reasonable domain experts. If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they know how implausible it sounds. And yet they’re proposing it anyway. That suggests they know something you don’t. And if they have deep domain expertise, that’s probably the source of it.
“Such ideas are not merely unsafe to dismiss, but disproportionately likely to be interesting.”
I’ve written a number of essays about crazy ideas. Here. Also here. The last of which you’ll need to Ctrl F “crazy”, if you don’t want to read through all of it. And also, most recently, here. But that’s besides the point. The common theme between all of these is that crazy ideas are not hard to come by. Crazy good ideas are. Good implies that you’re right when everyone else thinks you’re crazy. When you’re in the minority. And the smaller of the minority you are in, the greater the margin on the upside. Potential upside, to be fair.
As investors, we hear crazy pitches every so often. David Cowan at Bessemer even wrote a satire on it all. For the crazy pitches, go to episode five. The question is: How do we differentiate the crazy ideas from the crazy good ideas? But as PG says, if it’s coming from someone we know is a subject-matter expert (SME) and they’re usually grounded on logic and reasoning, then we spend time listening. Asking questions. And listening. ‘Cause they most likely know something we don’t.
That was true for Brian Armstrong, who recently brought his company, Coinbase, public. He worked on fraud detection for Airbnb in its early days prior. And he knew he was getting into the deep end with crypto back in 2012. But he realized how unscalable crypto transactions were and how frustrated he was. Garry Tan, then at YC and part-time at Initialized, saw exactly that in him. A reasonable SME with a crazy idea. Garry just released an amazing interview between him and Brian too, if you want to tune into the full story.
What if some of the variables in the equation are missing?
But most of the time the founders you’re talking to aren’t subject-matter experts with deep domain expertise. Or at least, they haven’t left an online breadcrumb trail of whether they’re a thought leader or if they’re reasonable human beings. So subsequently, in the little time I have with founders in a first or second meeting, I look for proxies.
For proxies on domain expertise, I go back to first principles. What are the underlying assumptions you are making? Why are they true? How did you arrive at them? What are the growing trends (i.e. market, economic, social, tech, etc.) that have primed your startup to succeed in the market? Does timing work out?
To see if they’re “reasonable” under PG’s definition, I seek creative conflict. How do you disagree with people? If I brought in a contrarian opinion you don’t agree with, how do you enlighten me? How do you disagree with your co-founders?
In closing
To be fair, we’re not always right. In fact, we’re rarely right. On average, in a hypothetical portfolio of 10 startups, five to six go to zero. One to two break even. Another one to two make a 2-3x on investment. That is to say, they return to the investor $2-3 for every $1 invested. And hopefully, one, just one, kills it, and becomes that fund returner. Fund returner – what we call an investment that returns the whole fund and maybe more. Of course, every time a VC invests, they’re aiming for the fences every time. As a VC once told me, “it’s not about the batting average but the magnitude of the home runs you hit.” And even in those 10 investments, it’s a stretch to say that all of them are “crazy” ideas.
But the hope is that even if we’re wrong on the idea, we’re right on the people.
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 recently came across the above quote – the attribution to Einstein. And I found it extremely prescient. In the world last year. And in the years ahead.
Creativity is the ability to find inner peace in a busy world. To weave cacophony into symphony. The ability to recognize and chart patterns between the pixels and decibels around us. A guiding, focusing, and metaphorical – and I mean metaphorical in its truest form – principle that abstracts you from the literal shackles of your current situation. Now before I get to abstract…
I’ve written about where I find my inspiration on numerousoccasions, including while I’m:
Exercising
Driving
Cooking
Showering
Listening to podcasts
Washing the dishes
… just to name a few. In each of the above, I give myself the intellectual bandwidth and the time to ponder. Simply ponder. With no goal or predestination in mind. Frankly, this blog is a product of such intellectual adventures.
And I know I’m not alone. In the world coming out of the pandemic, this may cause a new revolution of creativity.
Our grassroots
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, we transitioned from a nomadic to a more specialized lifestyle. The transition to specialized roles in a hunter-gatherer society allowed hominids to share the responsibility of survival. As we learn in the basics of economics, economies that have comparative advantages who trade can create a larger global supply of goods and services. In this case, it was the cooperation among the citizens of the same society that freed individuals’ bandwidths to explore other interests, including, but not limited to:
Controlled use of fire
Adaptability to colder climates
Specialized hunting tools, like fishhooks, bow and arrows, harpoons and bone and ivory needles
Intricate knowledge of edible plants
While hand-built shelters likely go as far back as 400,000 years ago, and huts made of wood, rock and bone as far back as 50,000 years ago, it wasn’t until the Neolithic Revolution that agricultural culture became a permanent habitual change. In the emergence of an agricultural lifestyle, humans now freed up time they would have otherwise spent on migration or hunting. And with that same free time, they invented more creative means of living, not just survival, like the means to combat disease and increased agricultural knowledge. Economists Douglass North and Robert Paul Thomas call this Neolithic Revolution the “first economic revolution“. The two state this was the result of “a decline in the productivity of labour in hunting, a rise in the productivity of labour in agriculture, or [an] … expansion of the size of the labour-force”.
Maslow’s Hierarchy
If we look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the evolution of free time, and therefore creativity, makes complete sense. Psychologist Abraham Maslowwrote in 1943 that humans make decisions motivated five tiers of psychological needs.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
A person’s most basic, tangible needs are at the bottom, whereas the intangibles reside at the top. And according to Maslow, you cannot begin to fathom the higher echelons of your needs, like esteem and self-actualization, until you’ve fulfilled the tiers underneath. Maslow also calls self-actualization “growth needs” and the lower tiers “deficiency needs”. In a very real sense, when you’re struggling to find food and shelter or job security, you don’t have the mental capacity or free time to entertain how high your potential can go. Time, specifically leisure time, is a luxury for people who have fulfilled all their deficiency needs. And that leisure time is what creatives need.
Asking the best
Of course if I was to write anything on creativity, I had to ask my buddy, DJ Welch (IG, LI) – one of the most creative minds I know. Not only did he grow his YouTube channel to 370,000 subscribers in less than three years, he was also an artist for Lucasfilm, Instagram, Cartoon Network and more. Now, he’s working on a new project – Primoral Descent – one that I’ve been excited for the public to finally see.
“As a child, my parents let me have a lot of free time. They let me make my own choices. They let me be imaginative. That’s when you come up with innovation. Creativity is a river above everyone’s head.”
When I asked him to unpack that, he said, “Good ideas are gifts from the universe – fish that swim in that river. All you have to do is learn how to reach up and fish for them. And just like fishing, if you stick around long enough – if you’re patient enough, you’ll be able to catch a few. But you never know what fish you’ll reel in. Just that you will.”
Toys for adults
We see the same with entrepreneurs and creatives. They have time to think. Time to reach into that river and pull out an idea. They are investors and the medium of investment is their time. In fact, you can argue they’ve dedicated almost every waking hour to optimize themselves to offer a creative solution or perspective into the market. They’ve made it their job to be innovative. After all, innovation, by definition, is a creative solution. Under Einstein’s definition, we could call them professional time wasters.
As Chris Dixonsays, “The next big thing will start out looking like a toy.” Today, we see the rise of NFTs, VR/AR, content creation, e-sports, and much more. Not too long ago, we had the telephone, and eventually the smartphone, as well as the internet. All of which had their origins as toys. And I know I’m only scratching the surface here. In order to have time to create toys, or for that matter, even play with toys, you need leisure time.
With that same time, more and more people are pursuing their interests and passions, creating, what Li Jin at Atelier Ventures dubbed, the “passion economy“. Similarly, more people are dabbling into new hobbies. In the pandemic, the average person saved 28 minutes of time that would have been spent on going to work. An hour on average for the round trip. Some people used that time saved to get more work done. Others used their time saved to discover new passions – be it baking, starting a podcast, hiking, or gaming. For many Americans, that extra time was paired with stimulus checks and communities coming together to cause political and economic shifts – for better or worse.
As Tal Shachar, former Chief Digital Officer at Immortals, said, “The next big thing in 2021 is the YOLO economy. Consumers will be more open to trying new products/services and spending on novel experiences, particularly with friends, as we emerge from the pandemic with pent up demand and few routines.” In the process of trying, you will inevitably uncover more surface area to expand on.
In closing
In 2021 and onwards, as entrepreneurship and solo-preneurship lowers its barriers to entry, we’re lowering the Gini Index equivalent for creativity. More people will have increased access to time – time to self-actualize. Time to challenge our status quo.
I love this line in Kevin Kelly‘s “99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice“: “The greatest rewards come from working on something that nobody has a name for. If you possibly can, work where there are no words for what you do.” If you can succinctly describe what you’re working on, then you’re not really pushing the envelope.
Later in that same essay, Kelly writes, “A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea.” And to have ideas, you need time. As DJ and I were wrapping up our conversation, I asked, “So, DJ, how do you optimize for creative moments?”
And he responded with some great food for thought. “I nap. Sleeping is how I process information. As I go lay down for a nap, right in that lucid moment, I come up with my ideas. I quickly scribble them down, then go back to sleep. When I finally wake up, I go work on them. The great Winston Churchill’s naps were a non-negotiable part of his day. In fact, during WWII, he had a bed set up in the War Rooms so he could take his daily afternoon naps. Similarly, I often take 20-minute power naps around 2-3PM. And I’ve never pulled all-nighters. Thinking isn’t hard for me. Thinking is the part ‘efficient people’ [who work straight through the day] get stuck on.”
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!
Years ago, when I first started in venture at SkyDeck, I met a founder who made me sign an NDA before he pitched. At the time, I had no idea that it wasn’t the norm. So, I ended up signing it without a second thought. It wasn’t my first time I signed one, and certainly not the last. He spent 20 minutes pitching his idea to me. I don’t remember the exact details of the pitch, but I remember it being an intriguing pre-launch idea outside of my realm of expertise.
In our last five minutes, out of curiosity, I asked him why he had me sign an NDA – something I’d never been asked to do since I jumped into VC.
He said, “I can’t afford to have you take my idea.”
Nevertheless, I had a couple names in mind that might be useful to him. At least more useful to him than I could be. But given the NDA, I needed written consent for every person I wanted to send his startup to. As well as consent for what I could and could not tell them. After two weeks of back and forth emails, he only allowed me to pass his idea to one other person. Even so, in a very limited scope. With very little context. Far from enough for my investor friend to say yes to a meeting. All in all, regrettably, the long slog of asynchronous communication heavily drained my willingness to help. And at the end of the two weeks, I was happy to get that load off my chest.
It was a lesson for myself. Ever since then, I err on the side of not making people sign NDAs. Why?
Most people don’t care enough about your problem space to pursue the idea you’re going for. If they were, they’d have pursued the idea/solution already.
Sharing your idea helps you more than it helps them. You get free advice and feedback, all of which are ammunition to further your idea. The more you share, the faster you learn, the faster you can iterate and grow your startup.
If you make a potential partner sign an NDA, it implicitly shows a lack of trust in the partnership, and there could lead to future friction between you 2, which would detract you from focusing on actually building the business. I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve seen businesses crumble because of a lack of trust. And it could start from the smallest thing and exacerbate into a full-blown drama.
On the off chance, they do take your idea and run with it to the market, they become a competitor to your business. And if you’re scared of competition, you’re probably in the wrong industry. Or if you want to run a lifestyle business (one at your own pace) – like a side hustle or one you find great joy in doing, it really doesn’t matter what other people are doing.
The success of a business is determined by how well you can execute. The first mover advantage is about who can get to product-market fit first, not who birthed the idea first. Before Google, AltaVista, Aliweb, and Yahoo! existed, just to name a few. Equally so, Myspace and Friendster started before Facebook.
A week after my intro, my investor friend hit me up again to tell me he turned down that founder before the founder even pitched. He told me, “It’s unnecessary red tape and not worth my time. And I’m not short on deal flow.”
Almost a year after that, in an effort to keep a complete record of the deals I’ve sent to investors, I revisited that startup. A quick LinkedIn search told me they’d closed up shop. I never checked back in with them to ask why. It could have been trouble in their go-to-market motions. It could have been co-founder disputes. Or it could have been their inability to find investment. I don’t know. But I imagine that their inability to find investors contributed to their closure.
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!
While I don’t always ask this question, when I do, it provides me enormous context to how the founding team works together. What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on? Over the years, I’ve heard many different answers to this question. “We disagreed on which client to bring into our alpha.” “On our last hire.” “Our pricing strategy.” And so on. As long as you contextualize the point of friction, and elaborate on how, why, and what you do to resolve it, then you’re good. There’s no right answer, but there is a wrong answer.
The answer that scares me the most is: “We agree on everything.” Or some variation of that. While people may share a lot of similarities, even potentially the same Myers Briggs personality type (although I do believe people are more nuanced than four letters), no two people are ever completely the same. Take twins, for example. Genetically, they couldn’t be any more similar. Yet, to any of us, who’ve met any pair of twins in our lifetime know they are vastly different people.
Priorities lead to disagreements
One of my favorite counterintuitive lessons from the co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, is: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.” He further elaborates:
“As an executive team, we never actually argued — which is a strange thing to bother a CEO. But in fact, something always felt not quite right to me when we always agreed. Clearly, we must not be making good enough decisions if we all agree all the time.
“What I came to realize was that the reason why we didn’t argue is we weren’t prioritizing. One person says, ‘I like idea A,’ and the other person says, ‘I like idea B,’ and you say, ‘Great, put them both down, we’ll do it all!’ And in fact, when you look back on those documents at the end of the year, we rarely got around to very much of anything in those documents.
“Be vigorous not just about what makes the list, but the specific order in which priorities fall. “We realized it’s not just about all the things we could do, but the order of importance — which is first, which is second. Now you get disagreements and a lot of vigorous, healthy debate.”
Starting the tough conversation
Admittedly, it’s not always easy to have these tough conversations with the people you trust most. In fact, often times, it’s even harder to have these conversations because you’re scared about what it can do to your relationship. Arguably, a fragile one at best. At the end of last year, Yin Wu, founder of Pulley, shared an incredible mindset shift when building an all-star team, which led to my conversation with her.
3/ We are not a family. We are a world class team, purpose built to win. Most founder-types do not want a 2nd family, they want to excel.
We push each other to improve. We own our mistakes so we can avoid making same mistake twice. We celebrate our joint success as a team.
You’re a team driven to change the world we live in. And to do so, you need a system of priorities.
One of the best ways I’ve learned to address conflicts – explicit and implicit, the latter more detrimental than the former – is taking the most obvious, but the one that most people try to avoid. Address the elephant in the room at the beginning.
I love the way Elizabeth Gilbertapproaches that elephant, “The truth has legs. It’s the only thing that will be left standing in the end. So at the end of the day, when all the drama has blown up, and all the trauma has expressed itself, and everyone has acted up and acted out, and there’s been whatever else is happening, when all of that settles, there’s only going to be one thing left standing in the room always, and that’s going to be the truth. […] Since that’s where we’re going to end up, why don’t we just start with it? Why don’t we just start with it?”
When it hasn’t happened yet
If you haven’t disagreed with your team yet, you either haven’t established your priorities or one or the other or both has yet to bring it up. A mentor of mine once told me, “Whatever you least want to do or talk about should be your top priority.” And the goal is to sit down with your team and figure it out. To come into the conversation suspending immediate judgment and trying to see where your other team members are coming from.
As the CEO of a startup or a leader of a team, you don’t have to use every piece of feedback or input you get from your teammates. But you should make sure your teammates feel heard. That you’ve put thought and intention behind considering their ideas and opinions. Whether you choose to deviate from your teammates’ opinions or not, you should clearly convey the rubric that you used to make that decision. And why and how it aligns with the company’s mission.
In closing
And of course, the follow-up to the first question about disagreement would be: How often do these disagreements happen? And how do you move forward after the disagreement comes to light?
I go back to a line Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList, once said, “If you can’t see yourself working with someone for life, don’t work with them for a day.” Indubitably, you’re going to be working with your co-founders for a long time. And if you haven’t dissented with your co-founders – or for that matter, other team members, investors, and customers – yet, you will. And knowing what, how and why you disagree with others can be invaluable for your company’s survival and growth.
This past weekend I heard a new phrasing of disagreement I really liked from a friend of mine. “Creative conflict.” I’m adding that phrase to my dictionary from now on. And well, this is my preface to you all before I do.
Prioritize. Communicate. And embrace creative conflict.
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 was a swimmer since I was very young and, you know, I never won. I never won.”
You’re probably assuming this is how the opening scene of a movie about a future world-champion swimmer begins. The beginning of the world’s most amazing underdog story. And you’re wrong. Well, not completely wrong. This isn’t a story about the world’s next biggest Olympic swimmer. Although it might be well-timed with the Tokyo Olympics around the corner. This… is a story, in my humble opinion, of one of the world’s next biggest venture capitalists. A story of a young Bangkok girl who became a VC from learning how to lose.
I’ve never been the smartest kid on the block. At least in the IQ department. So I make it my mission to hang out with folks who are smarter and more driven than I am. Jeep is no exception. I met her last month. And as if going from a World Bank economist to Intel leadership to startup advisor and investor to lecturing at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business was not enough, in our first conversation, she shared an incredible set of contrarian insights. So earlier this month, I had to jump into another conversation with her.
Something about going long
If you’re a long-time fan of this blog, you know one of my favorite Bezos-isms is, “If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.”
Jeep is that same kind of superhuman.
“I started as a competitive swimmer since I was seven, and I swam so much and so hard, like three kilometers a day. It’s just a lot of practicing. I never even won a medal. And I kept doing it. And that was hard.
“Because other kids they got medals in different styles. So I learned early on in life what losing actually meant. And I think that’s very important because a lot of smart kids, they never learn how to fail early on in their life. And it’s kind of like a winner’s curse because you know, when they’re the best at everything, since they were young, throughout college , once they come out, and they realize that the world is hard, they are doing things or want to pursue a career that their parents cannot help them, they become risk averse. Meaning they don’t want to try new things.
“So I never won in [any] swimming competitions. Until I got into college. When I got into college, at the time I already quit swimming. I quit in high school. So, I didn’t swim competitively anymore since I didn’t have time to practice. I picked up other activities like piano, which I came to love. In college, one of my friends asked me, ‘Hey Jeep, why don’t you come back to the competition?’ And she knew I never won. We were in the same race at so many events. And I said, ‘I don’t know. Let me try.’ So I tried again.
“So I got back to the practice routine. Adjust my strokes a little bit. And then I won. I got gold and silver medals for a college swimming competition. And I was like, ‘This is a joke. How could I win?’
I never won ever, like for ten some years. And I joke with my friend, ‘You know why, because everybody else quit!’ They quit about the same age in high school.
I just went for it. And that was one of the moments in life that I realized that it’s all about grit. You do what you love and you don’t quit. There will be a moment that you win.”
The analogy extends further
“Failure is the mother of success.” It’s an ancient Chinese proverb that my mom used to tell me again and again growing up. Every time I “failed.” Scored low on a test. Embarrassed myself on stage for a school musical. Placed fourth, right off the podium for multiple competitions. It’s funny thinking about it in retrospect since she turned out to be the exact antithesis of a stereotypical Asian parent. And I love it!
Take tbh, an app where you send your friends anonymous compliments, as an example. It launched back in late 2017. 73 days after its launch, it went from zero to 2.5 million daily active users, which subsequently led to a $100M acquisition by Facebook. To many, tbh looked like an overnight success. But it wasn’t. Nikita Bier, co-founder of tbh, and his team spent seven years with 15 failed products before they arrived at tbh. And with each iteration, they learned and compounded their lessons from their previous failure.
Clubhouse’s Paul Davison and Rohan Seth is another example of a seemingly overnight success. From Talkshow to Highlight (acq. Pinterest), the pair went through at least nine failed apps before they arrive at Clubhouse – last reported to have passed 10 million users. And valued at $4 billion. Their lead investor, Andrew Chen at a16z, spent eight years getting to know Paul.
One of my junior swim teammates told me years ago when I was at my prime, “David, I don’t think I can beat you as you are now. But I promise you I will beat you one day, even if that means after you retire.” At the time, I dismissed it as just another snarky comment, which athletes are prone to make from time to time. But now that I’m a bit wiser than I was in high school, I find that same comment incredibly prescient. It just so happened that a few years ago, we raced each other again. Both of us had long exited the competitive arena, and he won.
In closing
Near the end of our conversation, Jeep cited something Soichiro Honda, the namesake for the Honda Motor Company, once said. “Success can be achieved only through repeated failure and introspection. In fact, success represents 1% of your work which results only from the 99% that is called failure. Many people dream of success. To me success can be achieved only through repeated failure and introspection. In fact, success represents 1% of your work which results only from the 99% that is called failure.”
She further elaborated, “For people who grew up in a society, in a culture that does not easily accept failure, I want them to know that it’s actually not a bad thing to try and hear rejection. But along the way, they have to make sure that they learn.
“It’s the same thing when I teach UC-Berkeley students. I told my brilliant graduate MBA students that there is, for me – and it’s true – there is no stupid question. If other people think your question is stupid, but at least you learn. If you learn, there’s no stupid question. Do not ask good questions, if it means you don’t learn anything.”
In a way, I’m reminded of a peculiar quote by Karl Popper, “Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.” While Popper was known to be quite the contrarian thinker of his day, the same seems to hold for questions. Good questions kill flawed theories. We remain alive to learn again. After all, speaking from personal experience, I often find myself burning the midnight oil to ask the perfect question. But in the pursuit of asking the “perfect question”, I’ve forgone the adventures I would have had to arrive at the answer I thought I sought.
We learn when we fail. We learn, to one day succeed. The greatest are the greatest because they have a higher propensity to fail than the average person. As the great Winston Churchill said, “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”
And as Jeep said, “Winning is actually losing, but learning along the way.”
Thanks Jeep for helping with earlier draft edits!
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 month, I’ve doubted myself and my abilities more than I have in the past two years combined. Half from putting myself intentionally in tough conversations, half from pursuing new opportunities to see them turn belly up. The latter is merely a fact in life. But coupled with the former, I can’t say I was always the happiest camper. So, when in one of the former’s conversations, someone asked me: “Are you worth anything in the startup world?”… I hesitated for more than a day, before I had the courage to give myself an answer. While it was a rhetorical question then, it is a question I need a companion answer to now.
Nothing. Without entrepreneurs, I am useless in this ecosystem. On the flip side, if there are entrepreneurs that I can help find product-market fit and grow, I’m a percentage-based function of their growth. Let’s say as an investor, I own 10% of a company. If the company’s worth $0, then I am too. If it’s not zero, then I’m worth whatever 10% of the whole is worth. Is that a representation of my true market value? No. It’s merely an assumption that for, say, $250K for 10%, I am worth, in the long run, at least 10x of $250K to help founders move faster on their journey.
Something. How much? I don’t know. My job is to help pair founders with the knowledge, skills, and relationships that will transcend the outcome of the venture itself. They say entrepreneurship is never a zero sum game. Even if your idea doesn’t find its product-market fit, the time you spend hustling is cross-applicable to any other industry. Can founders find the knowledge, skills, and relationships without me? Most likely. There are so many resources online via YouTube, Medium, Substack, Quora, just to name a few, that it’d be silly of me to think I’m essential. What I can do is expedite the journey towards their goals. Hopefully even alleviate some stress. And even when I do so, I’m only truly useful in one chapter of their journey rather than the whole novel. But if my worth is just to reduce the friction it takes to get us one step closer to live in the world we want to live in tomorrow, then so be it.
I’m reminded of what Ashmeet Sidana of Engineering Capitalsaid recently. “A company’s success makes a VC’s reputation; a VC’s success does not make a company’s reputation. In other words to take a concrete example, Google is a great company. Google is not a great company because Sequoia invested in them. Sequoia is a great venture firm because they invested in Google.”
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!
One of the most common questions I get from first-time founders, as well as those outside the Bay Area, is: “Who is/How do I find the best investor for our startup?” Often underscored by circumstances of:
Raising their first round of funding
Finding the best angel investors
Doesn’t have a network in the Bay Area or with investors
While I try to be as helpful as I can in providing names and introductions, more often than not, I don’t know. I usually don’t know who’s the best final denominator, but I do know where and how to start. In other words, how to build a network, when you don’t think you have one. I emphasize “think” because the world is so connected these days. And you’re at most a 2nd or 3rd degree connection from anyone you might wanna meet. Plus, so many early-stage investors spend time on brand-building via Medium, Quora, Twitter, Substack, podcasting, blogging, and maybe even YouTube. It’s not hard to do a quick Google search to find them.
“Googling” efficiency
While I do recommend starting your research independently first, if you really are stumped, DM me on my socials or drop me a line via this blog. Of course, this is not a blog post to tell you to just “Google it”. After all, that would be me being insensitive. Here’s how I’d start.
One of the greatest tools I picked up from my high school debate days was learning to use Google search operators. Like:
“[word]” – Quotes around a word or words enforces that keyword, meaning it has to exist in the search items
site: – Limits your search query to results with this domain
intitle: – Webpages with that keyword in its title
inurl: – URLs containing that keyword
Say you’re looking for investors. I would start with a search query of:
Feel free to refine the above searches to “angel investors” or “pre-seed funds”.
Landing and expanding your investor/advisor network
I was chatting with a friend, first-time founder, recently who’s gearing up for her fundraising frenzy leading up to Demo Day. She asked me, “Who should I be talking to?” While I could only name a few names since I wasn’t super familiar with the fashion industry, I thought my “subject-matter expert network expansion” system would be more useful. SMENE. Yes, I made that name up on the spot. If you have a better nomination, please do let me know. But I digress.
First, while you might not think you have the network you want, leverage who you know to get a beachhead into the SMEN (SME network) you want. Yes I also made up that acronym just now. But don’t just ask anyone, ask your friends who are founders, relative experts/enthusiasts, and investors. Ideally with experience/knowledge in the same/similar vertical or business model.
Second, if you feel like you don’t have those, just reach out to people who are founders, relative experts/enthusiasts, and investors. Via Twitter, Quora, LinkedIn, Clubhouse. Or maybe something more esoteric. I know Li Jin and Justin Kan are on TikTok and Garry Tan and Allie Miller are on Instagram. You’d be surprised at how far a cold email/message go. If it helps, here’s my template for doing so.
Then you ask them three questions:
Who is/would your dream investor be? And two names at most.
Or similarly, who is the first (or top 2) people they think of when I say [insert your industry/business model]?
Who, of their existing investors, if they were to build a new business tomorrow in a similar sector, is the one person who would be a “no brainer” to bring back on their cap table?
Who did they pitch to that turned them down for investment, but still was very helpful?
For each of the above questions, why two names at most? Two names because any more means people are scraping their minds for “leftovers”. And there’s a huge discrepancy between the A-players in their mind and the B-players. Then you reach out/get intro’ed to those people they suggested. Ask them the exact same question at the end of the conversation (whether they invest or not). And you do it over and over again, until you find the investor with the right fit.
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!
