entrepreneur - Cup of Zhou

January 22, 2026January 21, 2026

Diligence on a GP’s Social Media Presence

A lot of what I will say applies similarly to assessing founders and with senior talent, but for the sake of this blogpost, I’m going to focus primarily on doing diligence on GPs.

Sequoia’s Pat Grady co-wrote a piece on AGI that’s been making its rounds the last few days. FYI, this post has nothing to do with AGI, so don’t get your hopes up. But in it, he shares:

Note the highlights above are all around how to better understand an individual’s internet presence. While not all-encompassing, understanding someone’s brand via their social media is more than just how many followers, likes, comments, and shares. As my good YouTuber friend once told me, “Not all subscribers are created equal. English-speaking personal finance content get paid the most per impression.” Analogously, the same is true for LinkedIn or Twitter/X content.

Just because you have 25K followers, how often are you just resharing your employer’s content? Or your portfolio company’s content? How often do you share your thought leadership? Do people follow you because of your perceived status or do people follow you because of the weight of your ideas? There’s a great Simon Sinek talk about the former Under Secretary of Defense on this, which I won’t bore you with the details, but if you want the full story, it’s here. In summary, if you no longer held the job title you do today, would people engage with you differently?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

The first filter is: What is your insight per post ratio? This includes reshares and comments they make on other people’s posts. At a high level, do you recognize what good content looks like?

The second filter is: What is your original insight per post ratio? How much of your activity is original ideas? Is that what people engage with? Or do they engage more with your reshared content? When they do engage, how?

Level 1 is a like. The least number of clicks to engage with you.
Level 2 is a reaction other than a like. It takes a second longer to do so, but is more intentional. To be fair, a spam-like content (i.e. “LFG”, “Proud of you”, “Excited”, etc.), I also put in this tier.
Level 3 is a thoughtful comment that you can’t use on any other post. They’ve read and thoughtfully engaged back. Also on this tier is a quick reshare.
Level 4 is a thoughtful reshare. Or on Twitter (still not easy to call it X), a “quote retweet.” You’re staking not only your personal brand and reputation with your own followers, but you’re also letting others know how you’ve thought about the content being shared.

It’s not a perfect scorecard, but I do keep a rough mental tally (which goes into my own memo) of what a GP’s social brand is. And at what point was there an inflection in their thinking and/or following. Usually quite correlated with each other.

Other things I find interesting to observe, but cannot be understood in isolation:

Most frequent commenters and reshare your content
Reactions-to-follower count ratio
Connections-to-follower ratio
How similar/different their content on LinkedIn vs Twitter/X vs Instagram/TikTok vs podcast platform is
AI-search optimization (AEO): What keywords and/or questions do certain GPs own in search traffic? How does it compare across ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini? And in incognito AI search.
Frequency of getting tagged by others on social media outside of viral periods
Endurance of content even when little to no engagement, usually for podcasts, blogs and newsletters. And why do they continue doing so even when it’s not producing the results they desire (more of a qualitative understanding on the personality traits of a GP)
Frequency of guest appearances on others’ content channels and how do those appearances’ views compare to said influencer’s average view-to-subscriber ratio

Photo by dole777 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.

January 16, 2026January 17, 2026

What is Adverse Selection?

One of the most interesting self-reflective questions I think GPs should ask is: If someone else had the exact same strategy and offered the exact same terms, why would someone not pick you over another VC? That’s adverse selection.

One of the three pillars (or five pillars, depending on who you ask) of underwriting a venture fund is winning. The others being seeing and picking (and supporting and selling). But sometimes what’s more interesting than underwriting why a GP wins is understanding all the reasons they won’t win.

It’s an interesting thought exercise I like working through with a GP. “Why won’t a founder let you invest?” or “Assuming you wanted to invest, why would you lose out on a deal?”

The most common answers are always:

“I missed the timing.”
“There was no more space left.”
“They weren’t raising at the time.”

In my opinion, while possibly true, all cop-out answers. Then I follow up: “Assuming you wanted to invest, and there’s space left, and they’re currently raising, why would a founder say no to you?” Or “Why wouldn’t you be able to invest?” More often than not, I get an answer along the lines of: “I win (almost) every deal I want.” Or “I have yet to raise my fund.”

Even if true historically, it doesn’t answer the question. It’s like asking a job candidate: “Tell me about your weakness.” And they respond with, “I’m too honest.” Or worse, “I have no weaknesses.”

What I’m trying to get at in these questions is not the “right” answer. There is none. But rather what are the reasons you’ll fail to win a deal. Which of those reasons are areas where you would like to improve upon? Which of those reasons are areas where you will continue to be unrelenting on? What will you not change? Only then can I get a better understanding of the GP you will become 2-3 funds from now. And if so, does it make sense to do business with each other today?

There’s a Fund I GP I ended up investing in. When I first asked him the question above, he reached the conclusion that his pitch and value-add resonated more with second-time founders than first-time founders at the pre-seed stage. And given that he wanted to grow into a lead investor eventually, what he had to figure out was how to build a strong enough brand with first-time founders, requiring both education and intentional positioning. For me as an LP, it became easy for me to see how he would grow into a Fund II GP. Between then and his next fundraise, I’d just track how many first-time founders he invested in, try to spend time with them at events, and ask why did you take this GP’s check and what did you really want from him.

There is no right answer as to what founders wouldn’t want to work with you. It’s just an exercise of self-awareness, so you can figure out what’s worth working on and what’s not. Adverse selection reasons I’ve heard in the past, in no particular order, include:

Political alignment
Naming a firm after their own name instead of an ideal (yes, that is a real answer I’ve gotten before)
Speed to make a decision
High ownership targets
Response time, including taking the holidays/weekends off when their peers might still be dealmaking
Lack of brand awareness
No founding experience
No experience at a large established firm
No relationships with key potential customers
Values shared publicly / controversial opinions
Personality (i.e. too nice, people pleaser, argumentative, arrogant, name-dropping/logo-shopping, too humble, etc.)
Lack of talent networks
Having invested in a competitor
A homogenous partnership
A rumor that is widespread but may not have real credence
A single remark from an influencer in the ecosystem (or a close friend), then what’s more interesting is why someone would say something like that
The way a GP dresses (especially important in certain geographies outside of the US)
The initial outreach was done by a junior team member or a broker/dealer
Subsequent conversations done by a junior team member
A reference call with their network done in poor taste
Someone with no board experience asking for a board seat
Having someone else on the team take the board seat even though you did the deal and the founder wanted you
Aggressive term sheet terms (1X+ liquidation preferences – participating and preferred)
Having no respect for prior round investors (especially, in relation to their most helpful investors so far, often related to their pro rata)
Badmouthing their existing investors and/or teammates

Photo by Javier Allegue Barros 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!

December 29, 2025December 28, 2025

Peter Walker as You’ve Never Seen Him Before | Peter Walker | Superclusters | S6PSE3

“You’re making decisions in an incomplete vacuum. What I think many people should do more of, in terms of those mental models, is frame it in the reverse. Which of these decisions am I going to make that is the most regret-minimizing? That I have the least likelihood of regretting later on in life, assuming that in most cases, I will be wrong.” — Peter Walker

The holiday season has always been a great time to celebrate the movers and shakers in our world. This season we’re celebrating my personal favorites in the VC and startup world. This episode, it’s with my man, Peter Walker, who creates some of the industry’s most talked charts and graphics around the ebbs and flows of tech innovation.

Peter Walker runs the Insights team at Carta, where he works to make startups a little less opaque for founders, investors, and employees. Prior to Carta, he was a marketing executive for the media analytics startup PublicRelay and led a data visualization team at The Atlantic magazine. He lives in San Francisco, but you can find him on LinkedIn (see links below).

You can find Peter on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterjameswalker/
X / Twitter: https://x.com/PeterJ_Walker

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:52] Peter’s first brush with entrepreneurship
[11:49] 996 work culture
[17:11] Peter’s disclaimer on his data
[21:27] Regret-minimization when investing
[24:24] One example of regret-minimization
[26:07] How does Peter choose which conferences to go to?
[29:33] Conference panels are often bad
[36:22] The incongruencies of what GPs say publicly and privately
[41:43] Peter’s first data visualization
[44:18] Why is soccer underrated in the US?
[46:10] What great lengths has Peter gone for his friends?
[48:21] One worrisome trend we’re going to see in 2026
[52:18] One optimistic trend to look forward to in 2026

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“No one has to force you to work long hours if you really want to. The founders and early employees who push hardest aren’t usually doing it because someone set the office lights to stay on until midnight. They’re doing it because they care. It’s not obedience—it’s compulsion.” — Cristina Cordova

“There’s a growing recognition that that sense of compulsion, it very rarely lasts for 10 years. […] It’s very rare to find that one thing—that one set of problems—that can get you so excited for your entire life.” — Peter Walker

“Curiosity is the art of asking questions where you’re not married to the answer.” — Matt Huang

“You should probably, if you’re a founder, for instance, selectively ignore at least half of what I’m saying because it doesn’t apply to you. And your job as a founder, your job as an investor, your job as a thoughtful person is to figure out which half.” — Peter Walker

“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” — Ronald Coase

“The worrisome part is that sometimes [selling founder secondaries] is at pretty early-stage companies—seed, A. Sometimes, it’s for $10,000 and I don’t know what happened there. Sometimes, it’s for a really sizable amount of money—seven figures. To me, that is a bubble sign. That is as close as you can get to capital is chasing consensus too much, and therefore, smart founders are just taking advantage and taking stuff off the table.” — Peter Walker

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

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!

December 5, 2025December 4, 2025

Insight Per Half Hour

This is a blogpost where I’ll risk sounding like an asshole. Probably am already one to some, although I try not to be.

My job—as well as all other investors, hiring managers, talent agents, sports scouts, just to name a few—is to make decisions relatively quickly when faced with the pure volume of inflows. Not necessarily investment decisions, but in a brief interaction, it’s my job to figure out if I want to continue spending time with someone. And if I do know, I need to set expectations clearly as soon as I can. Usually within the first interaction. Because of that, I find it useful to develop heuristics.

(max age at which the knowledge one has today would still be impressive) – (age today) = (# of F’s given)

Where… negative F’s is a lost cause. You’re too late to the game. Zero F’s means it’s to be expected. Expectation meets reality. And the larger the number of positive F’s given, the more impressive you are.

Let me contextualize this.

Today, I know that 7 x 8 = 56. Not impressive at all. I’m 29, at the time of writing this post. The max age knowing what 7 x 8 is, and still be impressive, is probably 5 years old.

The Pythagorean Theorem probably caps out on the “impressive scale” at 8 or 9-years old before it’s to be expected. Maybe 10. There are some pieces of knowledge that have an expiration date on impressiveness. If you know E=mc² at 6-years old, you might be a genius. If you brag about it at 30-years old, people will wonder what you’ve done with your life. That’s not to discount the folks who spend their life on the actual intricacies of the equation. There is also an age where it starts being worrisome if you still don’t know how to do something. At 10, if you know how to file taxes, people will shower praises at you. At 40, if you don’t know how to file your taxes, people will scoff.

The interesting thing is it extends beyond simple math. In venture, there is a certain point in your career that you need to know what pre- and post-money SAFEs are. You need to know the responsibilities of a board member, if you want to be a lead investor. You need to know how to file your K-1’s. You need to know what qualifies for QSBS. If you’re three months into your job as a VC, I don’t expect you to know how to negotiate pro-rata rights when a downstream investor wants you to sell a piece of your equity so they can keep their ownership targets. If you’re a VC, and not a GP, I don’t expect you to know the difference between a 3(c)(1) and a 3(c)(7) entity and that if you have a 3(c)(1) structure, then any LP owning more than 10% will be subject to the look-through rule and every single underlying LP in theirs counts as a beneficial owner and counts towards your 100 investor cap.

There is also so much free content online at this point that the max age where someone will still be impressed by a certain skillset or knowledge will continue to decrease as media democratizes knowledge. Made even easier with AI. Although do take niche knowledge generated by AI with a grain of salt.

The second part, which is equally as important, is: How did you acquire that piece of knowledge? For instance, one of the common “Would you rather?” assessments when I first jumped into venture was: Would you rather invest in someone who graduated from MIT with a 4.0 GPA or someone who took every free computer science course online to learn to built a software product? The common consensus on our team was the latter. The latter shows drive and intrinsic motivation. Critical for someone who’s a founder. Aram Verdiyan and Pejman Nozad call it “distance travelled”, a terminology I’ve since borrowed.

As such, both the insight and the insight development matters. It’s what I look for when I have an intro conversation with a GP and/or founder. It’s what I seek when I go to an investor’s annual summit. So much so, that in my notes, I keep track of who has the highest “insight per half hour.” And I have an extreme bias towards those who have something insightful to share almost every time I have a conversation with them, as well as those who accumulate insights faster than others.

Of course, this isn’t the end all, be all heuristic, but I find it helpful as a rough rule of thumb when a GP claims to have insight in a given area.

Photo by Ethan Hoover 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!

November 28, 2025November 27, 2025

Woe is Me

I was talking to an emerging manager raising a $10M fund recently. He shared a comment, likely off-the-cuff, but something I’ve heard many other emerging managers echo. “This year, most of the dollars deployed into venture has concentrated in only a few big funds.”

Not this manager in particular, but I’ve heard so many other Fund I or Fund II GPs say that. Blaming their struggle with fundraising on the world. It’s not me, but the world is conspiring against me. Or frankly, woe is me. But there is no LP who ever wants to hear that. Building a firm is hard. Building a startup, likely harder. No one said it’ll be easy. So let’s not pretend it’ll be all sunshine and rainbows. If you thought so, you’re deeply misinformed. If you’re going to be an entrepreneur of any kind, you need to take matters into your own hands. You cannot change the world (at least not yet). But you can change how you approach it.

And as an LP, that’s the mentality we’re looking for. Or as Raida Daouk once said on the pod, we like “GPs who can run through walls.”

That said, the mega funds who are raising billions of dollars are raising from institutions whose minimum check size is in the tens, if not hundreds of millions. These same institutions would never invest in an emerging manager. Their team, their strategy, and their institution isn’t built for it. When they have to deploy hundreds of millions, if not billions, a year into “venture” with a team of four or less, you’re not their target audience. So as an emerging manager, those mega funds are not your competition at least when it comes to LP capital.

You’re competing against all the other funds (likely emerging managers) at your fund size. Who can take the same check size you can take. That’s who you’re competing with. So whether you like it or not, billions going to the mega funds has, from a fundraising perspective, nothing to do with you.

If you are looking for reasons to fail, you will find one.

As the great Henry Ford once said, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re right.”

Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

#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!

November 21, 2025November 20, 2025

Underwriting Things That Don’t Change

One of the most interesting lines I heard on a podcast that Mike Maples was on was: “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” Which I first wrote here. Then here. It’s a line that lives rent free in my mind. Ideas, startups, roadmaps, and goals change all the time. I get it. That’s life. Very, very few folks are folks who unilaterally pursue one thing their entire lives. And of those who do, they’re not all successful.

Another friend of mine whose track record speaks for itself, having invested and involved herself in multiple boards before those companies became unicorns and even after, once told me that the idea she invests in is irrelevant. As long as it has grounds and can be adjacent to a large market. The primary thing she looks for is the founding team.

Early-stage investors obsess about people. They’re not wrong. Some are misled by these “VC-isms.” Others still have their own way of underwriting them. I don’t have a crystal ball. I’m also not the smartest person to be dishing out predictions. I have a rough idea of what will change, though I may not always be right. But I don’t know how they’ll change. Or when. So I’ve lived an investing career obsessing over things that don’t change. Or as Naval Ravikant puts it: “If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them?”

I’ve written about flaws, limitations and restrictions before. But to quickly surmise:

Flaws are things you can overcome. Limited track record. Never managed a team. Never scaled a product. Limited access to capital.
Limitations are imposed by others and/or the environment. Gravity dictates that objects don’t fall upward. There are only 24 hours in a day. If you’re not based in the Bay Area, it’s harder to raise capital. Certain investors prefer co-founders and partnerships. Certain investors care about warm intros. The list goes on.
Restrictions are rules imposed on yourself by yourself. Batman can’t kill. You only invest in solo founders. You only invest in healthcare. You don’t invest in anyone outside the Ivy League schools. But some restrictions go deeper. You’ll never hire from a job portal again. You never hire or invest outside of your network. You won’t invest or hire having never met someone in person. You need to meet their spouse before you make a hiring decision. You don’t invest in single parents. You don’t hire anyone who doesn’t read at least one book per month. You micromanage. You don’t hire anyone who cannot curse. And yes, I’ve heard all of the above and more. My curiosity is always: Why do you impose such restrictions on yourself? What is the story you’re not telling me? Is out of a fear or admiration?

All that to say:

Flaws will and can change if it is a priority. But won’t change if they’re not.
Limitations might change, but it’s outside of your and my control. And I don’t get paid to pray to the weather gods.
Restrictions often don’t change.

Whether you admit it or not, certain habits are hard to change and unlearn. It’s possible. But that requires you to not only be aware of it, but also actively want to change it. Other habits are second nature. How you treat others. How you start each conversation. Why you look both ways before crossing even an empty street. Why you’ve sold yourself a particular personal narrative. Why you have to invest a certain thesis.

The world seems to always be trying to stay on top of things, but there seems to be far less dialogue around how to get to the bottom of things. To me, when it’s underwriting a person and their team, it’s about underwriting what doesn’t change rather than underwriting what could.

Photo by Hc Digital 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!

November 3, 2025November 2, 2025

Where Does Intuition Come From? | Yiwen Li | Superclusters | S6E6

“The intuition part comes from activities of creativity that change your perspective.” — Yiwen Li

Yiwen Li is a seasoned investor with a successful track record of investing in AI, blockchain, and healthcare tech while developing global business partnerships to fast-scale the business.

Yiwen is currently Head of Venture Investments at Bayview Development Group, a global family office with diverse exposure public market, private equity, venture, and real estate. Prior, she was a Principal at Alumni Ventures, responsible for end-to-end multi-stage investments focused on blockchain and fintech. She was Director for Corporate Strategy at Masimo (Nasdaq: MASI). She built an innovation pipeline in healthcare connectivity and data analytics. She was Director for Corporate Development at NantHealth (Nasdaq: NH), where she established the international business division. Yiwen started her career at Capital Group in equity research.

Yiwen is an Advisory Board member of C-Sweet. She served on the board of Give2Asia as the chairman of the finance committee and a member of the investment committee. She was an advisory board member for the Asia Society where she co-founded the “Asian Women Empowered” initiative. She was recognized as the” Top 50 Women Leaders in San Jose 2024 and 2025”, “Top 50 Women in 2019” and the “Most Inspirational Women in Web 3”. Yiwen is also the author of one of the best sellers “Make the World Your Playground”, inspiring women to find their unique path. She is a frequent speaker on innovation and emerging technology trends.

Yiwen holds a Master from the London School of Economics and a Master from the University of Vienna. She also graduated from the Venture Capital program at UC Berkeley and the Private Equity Program at Wharton. She was selected to be one of the ” Young American Leaders” at Harvard Business School. Yiwen is a recipient of the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus scholarship. She is fluent in Mandarin and German, worked and lived in Europe, Asia, and US.

You can find Yiwen on her socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yiwenli999/

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:07] Yiwen’s childhood
[05:00] Jazz singing
[06:14] The value of learning languages
[09:01] How to build intuition around emerging managers
[14:51] Getting to the bottom of a GP’s motivation
[16:33] What percent of GPs are not in VC for the right reasons?
[19:47] Does success fuel or inhibit ambition?
[24:17] The cost of knowledge is cheaper
[24:56] Competitive edges in the current world
[27:06] Why creative activities matter
[31:21] Advice to emerging LPs
[32:42] Post-credit scene

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“The entrepreneur’s [life] is a life where you’re eating glass every day.” — Yiwen Li

“For the first time, the cost of knowledge is becoming cheaper.” — Yiwen Li

“It’s the easiest time to create a company. It’s also the most difficult time to maintain the competitive edge of that company.” — Yiwen Li

“The intuition part comes from activities of creativity that change your perspective.” — Yiwen Li

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!

October 31, 2025October 30, 2025

Dear LP

Writing this “Dear Emerging Manager” reached more people than I thought, so people asked me to write the same version for LPs.

You’re not special. No matter what GPs say, you’re not. I’m sorry. Refer to Danny Meyer’s line in Setting the Table: “You’re never as good as the best things they’ll say, and never as bad as the negative ones. Just keep centered, know what you stand for, strive for new goals, and always be decent.”

If you don’t believe me, imagine if you were broke, but you got to keep everything else you have. Knowledge. Network. Would the best GPs still give you carry if you had no money?

If a GP would, ask yourself why you’re so lucky.

If you still don’t believe me, watch this video about a Styrofoam coffee cup.

You’re likely not going to win the best co-investment. There’s very little incentive for a GP to. An experienced later-stage investor will do better than you. Will likely be more helpful than you. Even if by brand association alone. Will likely be better connected than you.

Even worse is if you can have the full pro-rata amount. Worse still, you get the “opportunity” to lead. If you do, you’re just telling everyone your child is the smartest kid on the planet. If no one else says that, it’s just you. Don’t believe your own bullshit. See Richard Feynman‘s line: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” Do note, it’s different if you get access to a Series D deal through your manager.

As of now, we’re investing in “innovation” when we should be investing in innovation. Let me lay down the incentives. You want liquidity, so you look at deals that generate such. The lowest hanging fruit here is companies who IPO. So you start looking for funds, and sometimes deals, that are in the same sector. And because you are, because you’re looking for that story, large organizations are pitching you that narrative. They restructure and hire teams so that it feeds that narrative. Because the multi-stage funds are doing so, early stage funds and “smart” first checks are pitching strategies and picking companies where they know the multi-stage funds will follow. The co-investor (much less the follow-on investor) slide in the deck gets the most attention these days. The established early stage programs are telling me, in confidence, that they invested in X deal because Big Firm Y will do so. And they’re optimizing for that. The larger platforms are telling me they’re hiring team members around which types of companies are getting late-stage funding and/or going public. Fintech became interesting because of Chime. Prosumer became interesting because of Figma. (Circa 2025). AI is interesting because of large secondary opportunities into OpenAI and Anthropic. Yes, these industries are all transforming the world, but note the incentives. These are the IBMs.

Because of all the above, funds really only have a 10-20% allowance to make venture bets. Any more than that, GPs risk career suicide, at least from the perspective of LPs. These GPs are “unbackable.”

I don’t want you to stake your careers on it. I’m just a stranger on the internet whom you shouldn’t take advice from. But this same stranger is frustrated at the collective risk appetite of an industry that’s supposed to be known for eating risk for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Venture has become too big of an asset class if you can describe emerging managers, established firms, growth equity, secondaries all within the same umbrella. The decision-making and the underwriting is different from each. Some see normal distributions. Others do not. Do not conflate a normally-distributed asset with a power-law-driven one.

A slow ‘no’ is worse than a fast ‘no.’ Some will thank you for a fast ‘no.’ Most won’t. But most will talk behind your back if you give them a slow ‘no.’ Time is the only resource we cannot win back. Yours and theirs.

Marks before Year 5 mean very little. You’re welcome to use them as directional headings, but never rely on them. Even if you do, do your own adjusted TVPI and IRR measurements outside of what GPs tell you and keep that methodology consistent across all investors you come across.

Lemons ripen early in venture. Early losses are not always a clear sign of a bad portfolio.

Another LP passing is not always a bad sign. Find out why. Find out how many other similar funds they saw.

It’s okay to pass on a deal if you don’t have the network to diligence the deal. Not having the network means you don’t have people who’ll tell you the cold truth. These are the people who’ll tell you that you have spinach in your teeth.

Don’t ask for data rooms in the first meeting. Or worse, before the first meeting. You’re likely not going to do anything with the data. In the words of my friend, “it’s like asking someone’s net worth on the first date.” Too early. The deck and a conversation is all you need to figure out if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Be transparent with your timing and decision-making process.

If you do not have the time, energy, budget, or network to do the work in true venture, hire someone to do it. Usually that means an oCIO, fund-of-funds, MFO, or a consultant. Make it their job. But make sure it is their ONLY job. The infamous fictional philosopher Ron Swanson once said, “Never half ass two things. Whole ass one thing.”

Your institution will thank you more for whole-assing one job. So, will your GPs.

In the words of Thomas Laffont, “Focus is a luxury.” You sit on more privilege than the vast majority of the world. More privilege than your childhood friends. It’d be a shame to not use the luxury that comes with that privilege.

Don’t torture the data. “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Let the data guide you to questions. Then form your own hypotheses. Understand you cannot grill any hypothesis until it dry ages for at least 7 years. Any sooner and it’s not worth the premium you paid for it.

Trust your intuition enough that you don’t regret in 30 years that you didn’t take the bet of the lifetime, but not enough that you live to regret a lifetime of (undisciplined) bets.

This letter is as much of a reminder for you as it is for me.

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya 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!

October 27, 2025October 26, 2025

$80M vs $800M vs $8B Endowment | Trish Spurlin | Superclusters | S6E5

“Once you hit a billion dollars, you should probably consider some sort of internal team. Just to mitigate risk. There’s audit risk involved when you have such a small number of people managing a huge pool of capital. It’s going to differ for everyone. That’s probably a good benchmark.” — Trish Spurlin

Trish Spurlin is the Investment Director at Babson’s $800M endowment, covering private markets investing with a large focus on venture. In fact 70% of their private equity portfolio is venture capital. Quite a unique strategy for an endowment to take. Why? An endowment is required to provide, in this case, the university money every single year, anywhere from 5% to 60% of a university’s annual budget. And to invest in an illiquid asset class aka venture capital that doesn’t return capital till a decade later, if not longer, takes courage.

You can find Trish on her socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trishspurlin/
X / Twitter: https://x.com/trishdigi

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[01:45] Sports in Trish’s life
[05:10] How does success fuel inhibit ambition? How does it inhibit ambition?
[07:35] How do you underwrite long term motivation?
[13:21] How fast you order something might matter
[16:04] Can Trish angel invest outside of Babson?
[17:08] Endowment with a $80M budget
[19:54] Should you hire an outsourced CIO?
[24:18] Endowment with a $8B budget
[27:47] Babson’s liquidity requirements
[30:33] How to ask about a senior partner leaving
[34:05] How does Trish build trust with her GPs?
[37:48] Trish’s interests vs Babson’s interests
[45:24] Hank Sauce
[47:26] Why is Ocean City Boardwalk special?
[48:51] What serves as a reminder to Trish we’re still in the good ol’ days?

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“What have [ambitious people’s] transition periods looked like? A lot of times when people do really cool things, there are 2-3 years after where they just don’t know what to do with themselves. That’s very normal. You see that with Olympians. You see that with astronauts.” — Trish Spurlin

“If you want to be told things when they aren’t going well, you can’t freak out when somebody tells you something that’s not going well. No emails in caps. No yelling. Take a moment to digest what you’re being told. You’re collecting information. You can discuss that information when the time is appropriate.” — Trish Spurlin

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!

October 20, 2025October 19, 2025

The Seneca of Investing | Jacob Miller | Superclusters | S6E4

“There’s this thing called alpha, which is returns driven by skill not market return. And when you start to think about what does that mean, skill means you’re doing something that other people aren’t. You have to be different from the average. What can drive that? How are you going to have that be positive expected value? You need to have unique information, unique insight, unique access, or get uniquely lucky.” — Jacob Miller

Jacob Miller is the Co-Founder and Opto’s Chief Solutions Officer, a key figure in its leadership team and central to its growth strategy. He spearheads initiatives for Opto’s fiduciary partnerships and the systemization of institutional-quality private markets investment techniques and programs.

Before co-founding Opto, Miller spent nearly five years as an investor at Bridgewater Associates. Miller has a passion for sensible long-term investing, systematizing investment processes, and distilling complex market dynamics into clear, logical linkages that help people better understand their investments. Having managed money for family and friends since he was 16, Miller is a certified market junkie. While he has a background in macroeconomics and high-yield debt, he finds the challenges and opportunities in the private markets space far more interesting and important, both for investors and society.

You can find Jacob on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacob-m-08b32967/

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[01:49] Why did Jacob start investing at 8 years old?
[07:20] The fallacies of storytelling
[08:49] Inputs, framework, and outputs
[09:21] Jake’s mental framework for alpha
[12:31] Pete Soderling’s unique access
[13:49] Jacob on defense tech VCs
[14:57] How does Jacob underwrite relationships in defense?
[16:30] How do you know if someone’s been preaching a story before it became a story?
[20:16] The difference b/w an opinion and an insight
[23:07] Why does Jacob write?
[25:42] Running with Joe Lonsdale at 8:30AM
[29:12] 2 wildly different billionaires
[31:48] What does Jacob want for the world?
[36:23] What keeps Jacob humble?

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. — William Shakespeare

“If you didn’t have stories or branding, it would take you four hours to choose which cereal to get based on solely merit — if you did cost comparison versus ingredients, nutrition, et cetera. You need the story to make a decision in two seconds rather than six hours.” — Jacob Miller

“You need to know what are the assumptions that underpin those stories so you can know if and when they’ve been invalidated.” — Jacob Miller

“You have inputs; you have a framework; you have outputs. The story is the output. You can be wrong on your inputs. You can be wrong on your framework. Better to be wrong on your inputs than your framework. Because if you were wrong on your framework—and it’s garbage— it’s garbage in, and garbage out.” — Jacob Miller

“As investors, we probably don’t want to bet on getting uniquely lucky. And access and information counts as insider trading in public markets. And so if you’re going to a public market asset manager who claims to have alpha, you need to be defending why you have unique insight. Why can you take information that everyone else has and derive conclusions that other people won’t, which is a very high bar. […]

“But in private markets, we can look to what are unique sources of access and information. Are you in founder networks that other people are not in? How can you show me you see deals before other people do? Do you have benefits as an LP or GP that you can bring to founders that might lead to preferential pricing that would lead to them choosing you first? Do you have a reputation that will attract the right kind of talent? And then on top of that, do you have really insightful frameworks about what makes a great founder, about how to assess TAM, about how to help a company scale through product-market fit to expansion and et cetera? I always start a private market analysis with: ‘Let’s talk about access and information. What do you see that others don’t? What do you know that others don’t?” — Jacob Miller

“Too much source-citing is honestly a red flag for me. This should be stuff you’re learning in the market that’s evidence of your unique access to information.” — Jacob Miller

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” — Alvin Toffler

“That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away.” — Seneca

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!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: