Not too long ago, I came across a question on Quora that I had to double click on: Why should founders care about VC brand? Money is money, isn’t it? While the question itself seemed to have a come from a less-informed perspective, I found it to be a useful exercise to once again go through the checklist of founder-investor fit.
Money, frankly, is just money. A Benjamin will look the same and work the same as any other Benjamin out there. Assuming you don’t need anything else other than money, I’d recommend other sources of funding other than venture funding, i.e.:
(Equity) crowdfunding,
Rev share,
Angels – high net-worth individuals who write checks in the 1000s to 10s of 1000s of dollars;
Also worth looking into, but are representative of the VC model, are super angels and solo capitalists. Many of whom might be leading their own rolling funds (more context) now;
Government (public) and private grants – really small sums of money, but money nonetheless;
Accelerators/incubators – less upfront capital. But the partnerships they have with other startup services save you a lot of money (i.e. AWS, Adobe Suite, etc.);
Selling domain names (yes, I have a friend who initially funded his business by doing that, but other than that, I’m kidding);
And I’m sure I missed some others out there.
On the other hand, most founders who raise VC funding want something more than just monetary capital, including, but not limited to:
Mentorship/advisorship –
Ex-operators who can give you tactical advice,
Former founders who can empathize with you,
VCs who can check your blind side and had previous portfolio founders who have gone through what you’re going through now,
People who have access to resources that will aid you on the founding journey (ideally not distract you),
And frankly, people who’ll be there for you when you have to make the tough calls,
Highly recommend Harry Hurst’s tweet about the CS:H ratio (check size: helpfulness, which I elaborate on here) as a mental model to figure out which VCs depending on fund size/check size can help you the founder the most at the stage you’re at.
If you’re trying to fill up a round, a brand name investor can easily help you fill in the rest of the round with their network and their participation alone. They’ll also help you raise downstream capital – directly or indirectly.
It’ll be easier to find customers. With a brand name VC, you also get quite a bit of media attention from Forbes, TC, NY Times, and so on. Customers are more likely to trust you knowing that you’re backed by a recognizable brand, especially the folks on the other side of the chasm on the adoption curve.
It’ll be easier to hire world-class talent. Your business, in their mind, is less likely to go out of business tomorrow. And while you’re not looking for candidates who seek stability, it does give the candidates you do want to hire a peace of mind and confidence that you have external validation.
There’s a saying that the difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see the latter. It’s really a chicken and egg problem. I’m not saying a VC’s brand will guarantee the success of your startup, but I do believe it will help, with the underlying assumption that you pick the right VC. Whereas it used to be a differentiator a decade ago, all VCs these days say they’re founder-first or founder-friendly. But unfortunately not all are. They might be if things are going well. But the true tells are what happens when things don’t go well. Here are some of my favorite questions to ask portfolio founders before you work with a VC. And how to find founder-investor 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!
As part of my work, I talk to many seed-stage SaaS founders. At the seed, most of these founders are thinking about how to get to product-market fit. The one in zero to one. They’re launching their product with a select few companies to really nail their pain points. And often times, pricing and the business model take a backseat when they offer their customers the product for free or at an extreme discount. While investors don’t expect founders to nail pricing at the seed, it’s useful to start thinking about your revenue model early on. After all, pricing is both an art and a science. And with the right pricing structure, it can also be your proxy for assessing product-market fit. Here’s how.
Every product manager out there knows that customers don’t always know what they want, so asking them for a solution rarely nets valuable feedback. Rather, start with the problem. What are their frustrations? What sucks? What’s the last product they bought to attempt to alleviate their problem? Subsequently, what’d they like about that product? What didn’t they like?
There are two perspectives you can use to approach pricing: cost-plus and value-based. Cost-plus pricing is pricing based on selling the product at a given markup from its unit cost. The biggest mistake founders often make here is underestimating how much it costs to produce a product.
On the other hand, there’s value-based pricing. An approach where you determine the economic value of the service you are providing and give it to your customers for a bargain. Superhuman, for instance, prices the fastest email experience at $30/month. Or in a different light, a dollar a day. If you are saving more than a dollar of economic value a day by responding to emails faster than ever, then the product is worth it. The biggest pitfall here is that founders often don’t fully understand the value they’re bringing to their customers, which is a result of:
They don’t understand your value,
Or you can’t convince them of the value you think you offer.
To visualize both of these approaches better, let’s use the pricing thermometer, as YC calls it.
The greater the gap between two nodes (i.e. value and price, or price and cost), the greater the incentive. If you’re selling at a price far greater than its unit cost, you are far more motivated to sell your product. On the flip side, if your product is priced far below the value and benefits you provide, a customer is more motivated to purchase your product.
Buyers vs Customers
To take it a step further, if you’re planning to scale your startup, what you’re looking for our customers, not buyers. Buyers are people who purchase your product once, and never again. They learned from their mistake. Your product either didn’t deliver the value you promised or the value they thought you would deliver. Customers are repeat purchasers. Why? Because they love your product. It addresses your customers’ needs (and ideally more) again and again. Your customers’ satisfaction is evergreen, rather than ephemeral.
When you only have buyers, you have to push your product to others. It’s the epitome of a door-to-door salesperson. Think Yellow Pages.
When you have customers, you feel the pull. Customers are drawn to you. They come back willingly on their own two feet. As Calvin French-Owen, co-founder of Segment, once said: “The biggest difference between our ideas pre-PMF vs. when we found it was this feeling of pull. Before we had any sort of fit, it always felt like we had to push our ideas on other people. We had to nag people to use the product.”
Value-based pricing is playing to win. Cost-plus pricing is playing to not lose. While the latter is convenient strategy when you’re a local business not looking to scale (i.e. coffee shop, local diner, local auto parts store, etc.), it’s incredibly difficult to scale with, especially as customer needs evolve. As you scale, your customers might include anyone from Microsoft who wants you to bring a sales engineer to integrate your product to a 5-person startup team who’s just testing your product out. With cost-plus pricing, you’ll be forced to determine price points on a case-by-case scenario. With value-based pricing, you can systemize dynamic pricing based on evolving customer needs. As their value received goes up, the price does too.
As the name suggests, to generate pull, we have to start from value. In this case, your value metric.
Founders often ask me, what slides on my pitch deck do I have to make sure I get right? The short answer, all of them. Then again, if you’re focusing on all of them, you’re focusing on none of them. So I’ll break it down by fundraising stages:
Pre-seed/seed (might as well include angels here too)
Series A/B
Since I spend almost no time in the later stages, I’ll refrain from extrapolating from any anecdotes there.
If you’re using DocSend, you already have the numbers for your deck viewership in front of you. As DocSend’s CEO Russ Heddleston said in his interview with Jason Calacanis, VCs often spend ~3.5 minutes on your deck. Though I’ve never timed myself, it seems to be in the same ballpark for myself as well. After all, it’s the deck that gets the meeting, not the deck that determines if you get funding or not.
Nevertheless, I hope the below contextualizes the time spent beyond the numbers, and what goes on in an investor’s head when we’re skimming through.
Pre-seed/seed
Team
What is the biggest risk this business is taking on?
Is the person who can address the biggest risk of this business on this slide?
And does this person have decision-making power?
Let’s say your biggest risk is that you’re creating a market where there isn’t one. Do you have that marketing/positioning specialist – either yourself or on your team – to tackle this problem? As much as I love techies, three CS PhDs are going to give me doubts.
Similarly, the biggest risk for a hypothetical enterprise SaaS business is often a sales risk. Then I need proof either via your network/experience or LOIs (letters of intent) that you have corporations who will buy your product.
Or if it’s a tech risk, I’ll be hesitant if I see two MBAs pursuing this. Even if their first hire is an ML engineer, who owns 2% of the business. Because it doesn’t sound like the one person who can solve the biggest risk for the business has been given the trust to make the decisions that will move the needle.
This might be a bit controversial, but having talked with several VCs, I know I’m not alone here. I don’t care about quantity – number of years in the industry or at X company. Maybe a little more if you were a founding team member who helped scale a startup to $100M ARR. I do care for quality – your earned secret, which bleeds into the next slide.
Solution/product
The million-dollar question here is: What do you know that makes money that everyone else is overlooking, underestimating, or just totally missed? If you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you’ll be no stranger to this question. I’ve talked about it here and here, just to name a few.
Or in other words, having spent time in the idea maze, what is your earned secret? Here are two more ways of looking at it is:
Is there an inflection point you found, as Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate calls it, in the socio-economic/technological trends that makes the future you speak of more probable?
Is it a process/mental model that you’ve built over X years in the industry that grafts extremely well to an adjacent or a broader industry?
I believe that’s what’ll greatly increase the chances of your startup winning. Or at least hold your incumbents at bay until you reach product-market fit. If you’re able to find the first insight, then you’ll be able to find the second. And by pattern recognition, you’ll be able to find the third, fourth, and fifth in extreme velocity. It’s what we, on the VC side, call insight development. And your product/solution is the culmination of everything you and your team has learned faster and better than your competitors.
Of course, your product still has to address your customers’ greatest pain points. You don’t have to be the best at everything, but you have to be the best (or the only) one who can solve your customers’ greatest frustration. So VCs, in studying how you plot out the user journey, look for: do you actually solve what you claim this massive problem in the market is?
Series A/B
Traction
What are your unit economics? I’m looking for something along the lines of LTV:CAC ~3-5x.
Who’s paying?
For enterprise, which big logo is your customer? And who are your 5-7 referenceable customers?
For consumer:
If it’s freemium, what percent of premium users do you have? I’m looking for at least a 3-5% here.
If your platform is free, how are people paying with their time? DAU/MAU>25-30%? Is your virality coefficient k>1? 30- and 90-day retention cohorts > 20%, ideally 40%.
What does your conversion funnel look like? What part of the funnel are you really winning? Subsequently, what might you need more work on?
The competition
95 out of every 100 decks, I see two kinds of competitor slides:
2×2 matrix/Cartesian graph, where the respective startup is on the upper right hand corner
The checklist, where the respective startup has all the boxes checked and their competitors have some percentage of the boxes checked
Neither are inherently wrong in nature, but they give rise to two different sets of questions.
The former, the graph, often leads to the trap of including vanity competitors. For the sake of populating the graph, founders include the logos of companies who hypothetically could be their competitors, but when it comes down to reality, they never or rarely compete on a deal with their target user/customer. April Dunford, author of Obviously Awesome, calls these “theoretical competitors.”
A simple heuristic is if you jumped on a call with a customer right now and ask: “What would you use currently if our solution did not exist?”, would the names of the competitors you listed actually pop up during the call? Or with a potential customer, what did they use before you arrived? For enterprise software, Dunford says that startups usually lose 25% of their customers when the answer to the above question is “nothing”. When your greatest incumbent is a habitual cycle deeply engrained in your user’s behavior, you need to either reposition your solution, or find ways to educate the market and greatly reduce the friction it takes to go from 0 to 60.
The latter, the checklist, usually sponsors a second kind of trap – vanity features. Founders often list a whole table’s worth of “awesome features” that their competitors don’t have, but many of which may not resolve a customer’s frustration. And on the one that does, their competitors have already taken significant market share. The key question here: Do all features listed resolve a fundamental problem your customers/users have? Which are necessary, which are nice-to-have’s? Are you winning on the features that solve fundamental problems?
The question I ask, as it pertains to competition, in the first or second meeting is: What are your competitors doing right? If you were to put yourself in your competitor’s shoes, what did they ace and what can you learn from the success of their experiment?
Financial projections
What are you basing the numbers off of?
What are your underlying assumptions?
How fast do you claim you can double the business growth? Is it reasonable? If we’re calculating bottom-up, can you actually sell the number of units/subscriptions you claim to? What partnerships/distribution channels are you already in advanced talks with? Anything further than 2 years out, for the most part, VCs dismiss. The future is highly unpredictable. And the further out it is, the less likely you’re able to predict that.
I also say financial projections for Series A/B decks is because only with traction can you reasonably predict what the 12-month forward revenue is going to look like. Maybe 18 months, depending on your pending contracts as well. In the pre-seed/seed, when you’re still testing out the product with small set of beta users, it’s hard to predict. And pre-seed/seed decks that have projections without much traction are often heavily scrutinized than their counterparts that don’t have that slide.
In closing
Of course, that doesn’t mean you should neglect any slide on your deck. Rather, the above is just a lens for you to see which slides an investor might allocate special attention to. If you can answer the above questions well in your pitch deck, then you’re one step closer to a winning strategy not only in fundraising, but in building a company that will change the world.
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!
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!
