startups - Cup of Zhou

August 17, 2020August 17, 2020

#unfiltered #24 How long do you take to prepare for a talk? – A Study about Time Allocation

notes, prepare for a talk, public speaking

Last week, my mentor/friend asked me if I knew anyone who’s stellar at storytelling and would be willing to hold a 1-hour workshop about it with his mentorship group. I connected with my buddy who earned his chops podcasting and being a brilliant customer-oriented founder, specifically on the user journey.

And it got me thinking. Hmmmm, I wonder how long people take to prep for a workshop or talk designed to inform and educate. Which eventually led me to the question… How much time allocation might many event hosts underestimate when asking a speaker to speak at their event?

Well, outside of travel, set up, rehearsal time, and of course, the length of the talk/workshop itself.

So, over the last few days, I reached out to 68 friends, mentors, and colleagues who have been on the stage before, including:

VCs – who invest out of vehicles that range from $5M to $1B (sample-specific)
Angels – investing individuals, who have over $1M in net worth
Founders – both venture-backed and bootstrapped
Executives – Fortune 500 and startup
Journalists
Influencers – YouTubers and podcasters
Consultants/Advisors
Professors
And, those who’ve been on public stages with 1000+ in live viewership.

… and asked them 2 questions:

How long, in hours, do you take to prepare for a 1-hour talk?
- For the purpose of slightly limiting the scope to this question, let’s say it’s on a topic you’re extremely passionate and well-versed in, and the audience is as, if not more, passionate than you are.
And if I said this was for a high-stakes event, that may change your career trajectory, would your answer change? If so, how long would you spend prepping?

50 responded, with numerical answers, by the time I’m writing this post, with a few results I found to be quite surprising. *pushing my nerd glasses*

August 6, 2020August 6, 2020

VCs = Gatekeepers?

Not too long ago, I had the fortune of chatting with a fascinating product mind. During our delightful conversation, she asked me:

Are VCs the gatekeepers of ideas?

…referencing Michael Seibel‘s recent string of tweets:

And I’m in complete accordance. I want to specifically underscore 2 of Michael’s sentences.

… and…

The only ‘exception’ to this ‘rule’ would be if investors themselves were the target market for the product. At the same time, I can see how the venture industry has led her and many others to believe otherwise. So I thought I’d elaborate more through this post.

July 30, 2020July 29, 2020

A Reminder of “Why I Love You” – Managing Downtime and Dynamics Between Fundraising Meetings

love, founder vc love, vc fundraising meetings

I recently read Mark Suster‘s 2018 blog post about startups on “Remind me why I love you again?”. As an extremely active VC, he specifically detailed why, unfortunately, by meeting 2, 3, and so on with a founder, he may forget the context of reconnecting and why the founder/startup is so amazing. And, simply, he calls it “love decay”.

The longer it has been since a VC/founder’s last meeting, the harder it is to recall the context of the current meeting. Though I may not be as over-saturated with deal flow as Mark is, it is an unfortunate circumstance I come across in meeting 5-10 founders and replying to 100+ emails a week.

July 27, 2020July 27, 2020

#unfiltered #21 The Recipe for Personal Growth – Thomas Keller’s Equation for Execution, The VC/Startup Parallel, Helping Others, La Recette Pour La Citron Pressé

Over the weekend, I was brewing up some mad lemonade. ‘Cause well, that’s the summer thing to do. Since I’m limited in my expeditions outdoors, it’s just watching the sun skim over the horizon, blossoming its rose petals across the evening sky, in my backyard, sipping on homemade lemonade. If you’re curious about my recipe, I’ll include it at the bottom of this post.

When I’m cooking or performing acts of flavor mad science, I enjoy listening to food-related podcasts, like Kappy’s Beyond the Plate, Kappy’s CookTracks or Bon Appétit’s Foodcast. Unfortunately, all are on a temporary hiatus. So, I opted for the next best – YouTube videos. And recently, a curious video popped up in my Recommended feed. A 2010 TED Talk with Thomas Keller.

Thomas Keller. An individual probably best known, among many others, for his achievements with The French Laundry. Needless to say, I was enamored by his talk. But the fireworks in my head didn’t start going off until the 12:46 mark.

July 23, 2020July 23, 2020

Why Aren’t Investment Theses Hyper-Specific?

As a result of my commitment to provide feedback for every founder who wants a second (or third) pair of eyes on their pitch deck, I’ve been jumping on 30-minute to 1-hour calls with folks. Although I’ve had this internal commitment ever since I started in venture, I didn’t vocalize it until earlier this year. And you know, realistically, this is not gonna scale well… at all. But hey, I’ll worry about that bridge when I cross it.

Something I noticed fairly recently, which admittedly may partly be confirmation bias ever since I became cognizant of it, is that there have been a significant number of founders currently fundraising who complain to me about:

Many VCs don’t have their investment thesis online/public.
Of those that are, VCs have “too broad” of a thesis.

So, it got me thinking and asking some colleagues. And I will be the first to admit this is all anecdotal, limited by the scope of my network. But it makes sense. That said, if you think I missed, overlooked, over- or underestimated anything, let me know.

The Exclusionary Biases

By virtue of specificity, you are, by definition, excluding some population out there. For example, in focusing only on potential investments in the Bay, you are excluding everyone else outside or can’t reach the Bay in one way or another. Here’s another. Let’s say you look for founders that are graduates from X, Y, or Z university. You are, in effect, excluding graduates from other schools, but also, those who haven’t graduated or did not have the opportunity to graduate at all.

The seed market example

Here’s one last one. This is more of an implicit specificity around the market. The (pre-) seed market is designed for largely two populations of founders:

Serial entrepreneurs, who’ve had at least one exit;
And, single-digit (or low double) employees of wildly successful ventures.

Why? You, as a founder, are at a stage where you have yet to prove product-market fit. Sometimes, not even traction to back it up. And when you’re unable to play the numbers game (like during the stages at the A and up), VCs are betting on the you and your team. So, to start off, we (and I say that because I’ve been guilty of overemphasizing this before) look into your background.

What did your professional career look like before this?
Do you have the entrepreneurial bone in your body?
How long have you spent in the idea maze?
- Here’s some context of what the idea maze might look like in another post I wrote.

The delta between a good investor and a great investor

Let’s say an investor were to be approached by two founders with the exact same product, almost identical team, same amount of traction, same years of experience, and let’s, for argument’s sake, have spent the same number of years contemplating the problem, but the only difference is where they came from. One is a first-time founder from [insert corporate America]. The other is the 5th employee of X amazing startup. Many VCs I’ve talked with would and have defaulted on the latter. And the answer is reinforced if the latter is a founder with an exit.

The question wasn’t made to be fair. And, it’s not fair. To the VCs’ credit, their job is to de-risk each of their investments. Or else, it’d be gambling. One way to do so is to check the founder’s professional track record. But the delta here that differentiates the good from the great investor is that great investors pause after given this information and right before they make a conclusion. That pause that gives them time to ask and weigh in on:

What is this founder(s)’ narrative beyond the LinkedIn resume?

Shifting the scope

It’s not about the quantitative, but about the qualitative. It’s not about the batting average, but about the number and distance of the home runs. So instead of the earlier question:

How long have you spent in the idea maze?

And instead…

What have you learned in your time in the idea maze?

Similarly, from what I’ve gathered from my friends in deep/frontier tech, instead of:

How many publications have you published?

And instead…

Where are you listed in the authorship of that research? The first? The second? The 20th?
- For context of those outside of the industry, where one is listed defines how much that person has contributed towards the research.
- As a slight nuance, there are some publications, where the “most important” individual is listed last. Usually a professor who mentored the researchers, but not always.
And, how many times has your research been cited?

Some more context onto specificity

Some other touch points on why (public) investment theses are broad:

FOMO. Investors are scared of the ‘whats if’s’. The market opportunity in aggregate is always smaller than the opportunity in the non-aggregate.
Hyper-specific theses self-selects founders out who think they’re not a ‘perfect fit’. Very similar to job posts and their respective ‘requirements’.
Some keep their thesis broad in the beginning before refining it over time. This is more of a trend with generalist funds.
Theses are broad by firm, but more specific by partner. The latter of which isn’t always public, but can generally be tracked by tracking their previous investments, Twitter (or other social media) posts, and what makes them say no. Or simply, by asking them.

The pros of specificity

Up to this point, it may seem like specificity isn’t necessarily a good thing for an investor. At least to put out publicly.

But in many cases, it is. It helps with funneling out noise, which makes it easier to find the signals. It may mean less deal flow, which means less ‘busy’ work. But you get to focus more time on the ones you really care about. And hopefully lead to better capital and resource allocation. The important part is to check your biases when honing the thesis. Also, happens to be the reason why LPs (limited partners – investors who invest in VCs) love multi-GP funds (ideally of different backgrounds). Since there are others who will check your blind side.

Specificity also works in targeting specific populations that may historically be underrepresented or underestimated. Like a fund dedicated to female founders or BIPOC founders or drop-outs or immigrant founders. Broad theses, in this case, often inversely impact the diversity of investments for a fund. When you’re not focusing on anyone, you’re focusing on no one. Then, the default goes back to your track record of investments. And your track record is often self-perpetuating. If you’ve previously backed Stanford grads, you’re most likely going to continue to attract Stanford grads. If you’ve previously backed white male founders, that’ll most likely continue to be the case. In effect, you’re alienating those who don’t fit the founder archetype you’ve previously invested in.

In closing

We are, naturally, seekers of homogeneity. We naturally form cliques in our social and professional circles. And the more we seek it – consciously and subconsciously, the more it perpetuates in our lives. Focus on heterogeneity. I’m always working to consider biases – implicit and explicit – in my life and seeing how I’m self-selecting myself out of many social circles.

Whether you, my friend, are an investor or not. Our inputs define our outputs. Much like the food we put in our body. So, if there’s anything I hope you can take away from this post, I want you to:

Take a step back,
And examine what personal time, effort, social, and capital biases are we using to set the parameters of our investment theses.

Photo by Andrew Teoh 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!

July 20, 2020July 21, 2020

#unfiltered #20 You Will Be What You Eat, You Are What You Excrete – Leading vs Lagging Indicators, One of My Relationship-Building/Networking Practices

Yesterday evening, I sat in our backyard, sipping homemade lemonade and sketching out my weekly creative endeavor (why). Between sips and furtive glances upwards, I hoped to catch a glimpse of NEOWISE. But alas, I forgot to pray to the weather gods in the morning.

Disappointed, I packed up to head inside. As if by a stroke of fate, my phone buzzed. You know, this story would be more dramatic if my disappointment was telepathically transmitted to my friends. Tongue in cheek, I apologize if I got your hopes up. But, it was merely the influx of messages after my timed “Do Not Disturb” mode switched off. Yet one of these blips came from a good ol’ swim team pal into our group chat. Lo and behold – an HD cross section in time of the exact comet.

I propped my cell above my head, positioned just north of the horizon. And unable to hold my smile back, I stuck around for a while longer.

So what?

You’re probably wondering: How the hell does yesterday’s smile have to do with “You will be what you eat, you are what you excrete”. As the title of the post so kindly suggests. Trust me it does. Admittedly, probably not the greatest of blog post titles, but, hey, it rhymes. Which might be the lamest excuse you’ve heard this month. But I digress.

You will be what put in your body. You are already what comes out of your body. Literally. Well, I’m sure my cousins who are molecular cell biologists will point out some (or many) of the nuances I missed. But we don’t have to count the cards.

The same is true for your personality. You build your personality based on the inputs in your life from when you’re younger. Your personality is subsequently evidenced by what you say and do.

And, I can say the same for education, biases, and so on. For the purpose of this post, I’d like to underscore one other – relationship-building. Or as most others understand it, networking. But I have a mild allergic reaction to that nomination.

July 13, 2020July 13, 2020

#unfiltered #18 Naivety vs Curiosity – Asking Questions, How to Preface ‘Dumb’ Questions, Tactics from People Smarter than Me, The Questions during Founder-Investor Pitch

asking questions, naivete vs curiosity, how to ask questions

Friday last week, I jumped on a phone call with a founder who reached out to me after checking out my blog. In my deep fascination on how she found and learns from her mentors, she shed some light as to why she feels safe to ask stupid questions. The TL;DR of her answer – implicit trust, blended with mutual respect and admiration. That her mentors know that when she does ask a question, it’s out of curiosity and not willing ignorance – or naivety.

But on a wider scope, our conversation got me thinking and reflecting. How can we build psychological safety around questions that may seem dumb at first glace? And sometimes, even unwittingly, may seem foolish to the person answering. The characteristics of which, include:

A question whose answer is easily Google-able;
A question that the person answering may have heard too many times (and subsequently, may feel fatigue from answering again);
And, a question whose answer may seem like common sense. But common sense, arguably, is subjective. Take, for example, selling losses and holding gains in the stock market may be common sense to practiced public market investors, but may feel counter-intuitive to the average amateur trader.

We’re Human

But, if you’re like me, every so often, I ask a ‘dumb’ question. Or I feel the urge to ask it ’cause either I think the person I’m asking would provide a perspective I can’t find elsewhere or, simply, purely by accident. The latter of which happens, though I try not to, when I’m droning through a conversation. When my mind regresses to “How are you doing?” or the like.

To fix the latter, the simple solution is to be more cognizant and aware during conversations. For the former, I play with contextualization and exaggeration. Now, I should note that this isn’t a foolproof strategy and neither is it guaranteed to not make you look like a fool. You may still seem like one. But hopefully, if you’re still dying to know (and for some reason, you haven’t done your homework), you’re more likely to get an answer.

May 25, 2020May 25, 2020

A Telltale Sign for a “VC No”

telltale sign, conviction, leap of faith, how to find a lead investor

Three moons ago, I jumped on a call with a founder who was in the throes of fundraising and had half of his round “committed”. And yes, he used air quotes. So, as any natural inquisitive, I got curious as to what he meant by “committed”. Turns out, he could only get those term sheets if he either found a lead or could raise the other half successfully first. Unfortunately, he’s not the only one out there. These kinds of conversations with investors have been the case, even before COVID. But it’s become more prevalent as many investors are more cautious with their cash. And frankly, a way of de-risking yourself is to not take the risk until someone else does.

I will say there are many funds out there where as part of the fund’s thesis, they just don’t lead rounds. But your first partner… you want them to have conviction.

Just like, no diet is going to stop me from having my mint chocolate chip with Girl Scout Thin Mints, served on a sugar cone. I’m salivating just thinking about it, as the heat wave is about to hit the Bay. An investor who has conviction will not let smaller discrepancies, including, but not limited to:

Crowded cap table,
No CTO,
College/high school dropout,
Lower than expected MRR or ARR,
No ex-[insert big tech company] team members,
Or, no senior/experienced team members,

… stop them from opening their checkbook. And just like I’ll find ways to hedge my diet outlier, through exercise or eating more veggies, an investor will find ways to hedge their bets, through their network (hiring, advisors, co-investors, downstream investors), resources, and experience.

So, what is that telltale sign of a lack of conviction?

I will preface by first saying, that the more you put yourself in front of investors, the more you’ll be able to develop an intuition of who’s likely to be onboard and who’s likely not to. For example, taking longer than 24 hours to respond to your thank you/next steps email after that pitch meeting. Or, on the other end, calling someone “you have to meet” mid-meeting and putting you on the line.

It seems obvious in retrospect, but once upon a time, when I was fundraising, I just didn’t let myself believe it was true. That investors just won’t have conviction when they ask:

Who else is interested?

A close cousin includes “Who else have you talked to?” (And what did they say?). If their decision is contingent – either consciously or subconsciously – with benchmarking their decision on who else is going to participate (or lead), you’re not talking to a lead (investor). And that initial hesitation, if allowed manifest further, won’t do you much good in the longer run, especially when things get bumpy for the company. Robert De Niro once said, in the 1998 Ronin film,

“Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.”

You want investors who have conviction in your business – in you. Who’ll believe in you through thick and thin. After all, it’s a long-term marriage. Admittedly, it takes time and diligence to understand what kind of investor they are.

In closing

Like all matters, there are always other confounding and hidden variables. And though no “sign” is your silver bullet for understanding an investor’s conviction. Hopefully, this is another tool you can use from your multi-faceted toolkit.

From spending time with some of the smartest folks on both sides of the table and from personal observations, even if it’s anecdotal, the sample size should be significant enough to put weight behind the hypothesis. And, if I ever find myself wanting to ask that question, I aim to be candid, and tell founders that I’m not interested.

Photo by Manuel Meurisse on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!

May 18, 2020May 20, 2020

An Underappreciated Way to Get a VC’s Attention

message, fundraising, investor list, how to get a VC's attention

It’s been a trying time for founders to fundraise in these turbulent times. On one end, you have investors who took a U-turn on plans to invest this year. On the other, you have investors still deploying or looking to deploy capital. The latter further breaks down into: (a) investors who are taking more calculated bets – raising the bar for the kind of startup that gets the capital, and (b) investors who find the opportunity to invest in the down markets. The latter cohort of the latter cohort seems to hold truer at and prior to the pre-seed stages among microfunds and angel groups.

The Tightening of the Market

Disregarding the investors who aren’t deploying capital anymore, it’s been harder than ever to raise. Here’s why:

Anecdotally, more startups are looking to fundraise. Many have pushed up their fundraising schedules.
The standard is much higher now than before. And that includes a stronger consideration for the problem you’re addressing. Is it anti-fragile? Is it recession-proof? If your numbers are down now, will they eventually ‘flip’ back on track post-quarantine?
Valuations are taking a hit. Where before your startup may have been overvalued (especially in Silicon Valley), many startups are facing “more realistic” round sizes. And flat or down rounds are more prevalent.
When investors can’t meet founders in-person, they’re resorting to data, data, data. Investors no longer have the luxury to benchmark a gut check over Zoom/email, as they would have in noticing micro-gestures and other situational context clues. Anecdotally, investors are spending much more time and putting much more weight on diligence than before.

And, that’s why founders, more than ever, should (re)consider fundraising strategies. This was something that I learned when I was on the operating side and at one point, working on the fundraising front for Localwise.

Much like when high school students apply for college, founders should have a three-tiered list – SMR, as I like to call it:

Safety,
Meet,
And, reach.

Safety

Safety investors are those that are definitely going to take the meeting. And will most likely invest in you (i.e. at the idea stage, this mostly comprises of family, friends, and colleagues, maybe even early fans via crowdfunding). Admittedly, they can only contribute small sums of money. Each check also carry little to no strategic weight on the cap table.

Meet

Meet investors are investors that will most likely take the first meeting, but you’ll need to do a little leg work to get them to invest. Many of these will most likely stick to being participants than leads in any round. They carry some strategic weight on the cap table – in the capacity of their network, their brand, or advice.

Reach

Your reach investors will be your greatest sponsors. The people who have the highest potential to get you hitting the ground running. These folks usually have crowded inboxes already. And you’ll need to figure out how to best reach them. Unless they reach out to you, you will most likely fall just short of their gold standard. But once you stget these onboard, your relationship will set you up for reaching your next milestone better than any other individual partnership. At the same time, they will be the ones who are most likely going to have true conviction behind your product, your market insight, and your team. They typically lead rounds, and carry great strategic value to your startup (i.e. top tier investors, SMEs, product leaders in your respective vertical). For lack of better words, your ‘dream girl’ or ‘guy’.

Your Priorities

When pitching (and practicing your pitch), go for a bottom-up approach. Safety, then meet, then finally reach. And ideally, by the time you’re pitching to your ‘dream girl’ or ‘guy’, you’d have refined your pitch that best fits their palate.

When prioritizing time and effort, go top-down. Since you have limited bandwidth, spend the most time doing diligence on your reach investors. Then meet. And if you still have time, safety.

Diligence and Reaching Out

During your diligence process, look at their team, their individual and collective experience. Is their partnership, especially the checkwriters, diverse? Were they former operators? Or career VCs? And based on what they have, what do you, as a founder, need the most right now? Also, to better understand the marriage you’ll be getting in to, talk to their portfolio startups and investors that have worked with them before. Pay special attention to the the venture bets that didn’t work out. Was there a break up? If there was, what was it like? How did the investor help them navigate tough times?

It’s easy to be positive and cohesive when things are working out, but how does that investor react when things aren’t going as expected?

After talking to the (ex-)portfolio founders, if you feel like they have a good grasp on what you’re working on and are excited for you, ask them for an intro. Focus on those founders who have gone through the idea maze in your respective vertical, or an adjacent one. If you’re defining a new vertical, or that investor has just never invested in your vertical, but has expressed public interest of pursuing investments in yours, ask founders who have the same or a similar business model to yours. After all, that’s going to be the kind of solid warm intro you want.

In Closing

Though there are other ways to get in front of investors (some more questionable and/or gutsy than others), including, but not limited to:

Warm intros from friend/mutualLinkedIn connection,
Cold email/DM,
Reaching out to a more junior team member (scout/analyst/associate/principal),
Presenting at accelerator/incubator Demo Days,
Presenting at a hot conference, like TC Disrupt or SXSW,
Volunteering at the same non-profit as them,
Auditing their lecture at Stanford,
Or, squeezing into their elevator (although most VC offices are pretty lateral)…

… anecdotally, it seems many founders overlook the means of getting an intro from a VC’s portfolio.

Photo by Marvinton from Pixabay

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!

May 11, 2020November 29, 2020

How Marriage Counseling Advice Applies to Managing Team Dynamics

marriage, relationship dynamics, team dynamics

Last Friday, I jumped on a call with my wickedly-creative founder friend. Given his cognitive flexibility, our conversations usually span a multitude of topics. And our Friday call was no exception – from product design to community management to de-stressors. Then, finally, marriage counseling and its applications in managing team dynamics.

Empirically, I focused my attention on co-founder dynamics when sharing an exercise I learned in my expedition to find the curiously passionate and the passionately curious. But I realize now that there are so many direct parallels on a broader scale to teams at large. From none other than a marriage counselor.

I want to preface that this exercise isn’t designed to be universal. And there’s a good chance it may not be useful for the situation you’re in or have been in. But nevertheless, hopefully, it can be another tool in your toolkit. So, if ever, when you do feel the need, it’s something that you can pull from your arsenal.

The Exercise

Start every day gauging your individual gross energy level (i.e. motivation, excitement, emotional state) on a percentage scale with your partner(s)*.
- * Yes, this was shared to me from a perspective that was inclusive of various forms of romantic relationships, including polyamory. Though I find it to be equally useful, when used among multiple co-founders/team members.
- To put it into perspective, I usually sit around a 60-70%. When I’m inspired, motivated, or feel I can take on the world, I’m at 90-110%. Although extremely rare, when I’m down (i.e. sick, depressed, sad, unmotivated, stressed, in emotional turmoil, burnt out, or when I just want to regress to my shell), I’m usually at a 10-20%.
Assess if you and your partner(s)’ collective energy level add up to 100% or more.
- If one of you is feeling down, can (the rest of) you make up for that energy deficiency?
- If I’m feeling 10%, and I just find it hard to get shit done, can my partner make up that 90% and help us as a team champion the day?
- And let the person hovering 10% take the day off.
If the collective energy just isn’t there, then the team falls on 2 types of contingency plans.
1. Can you design a system (or if you already have a system in place) where all of you don’t have to put in 100%, but can still get things done?
  - Maybe this is the day to clean your house. Or wash the car.
  - For founding teams, maybe this is the day the whole team just does data entry.
  - For content creators, I hear this is the day to go through fan mail.
2. Take the day off. Yes, the full day. And, no halfies. As great philosopher, Ron Swanson, once said:

“Never half-ass two things; whole ass one thing.”

Go take a day trip into the wilderness. Play video games. Read a fiction book. Draw. People-watch in a cafe (well, after the quarantine). Netflix-binge. Go tackle something on your bucket list.
And cap the downside – the potentiality of a slippery slope. I usually cap it at 3 days. Any longer, the counselor recommended seeing a relationship specialist.
- Relationship counselor, if romantic.
- Therapist/psychologist, if emotional.
- Executive coach, if pertinent to co-founders.
- Organizational therapist/psychologist, if pertinent to team.

What I didn’t realize until the Call

It seems obvious in retrospect, but it didn’t click until my buddy and I were thinking aloud. Subsequently, we realized how pertinent that exercise can be in understanding team workflows, as well as knowing when to double down and when to backpedal. Productivity has taken a sharp decline in this pandemic. For many, they’ve felt busier and working longer than before. The lack of diverse human interactions – for both extroverts and introverts – is really taking a toll. After all, we’re a social species. For managers, co-workers, and lateral teams, this exercise can be a way you can proactively assess your team’s morale and mental health. Assess early and optimize flexibly.

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

The Exclusionary Biases

The seed market example

The delta between a good investor and a great investor

Shifting the scope

Some more context onto specificity

The pros of specificity

In closing

Share this:

So what?

Share this:

We’re Human

Share this:

So, what is that telltale sign of a lack of conviction?

In closing

Share this:

The Tightening of the Market

Safety

Meet

Reach

Your Priorities

Diligence and Reaching Out

In Closing

Share this:

The Exercise

What I didn’t realize until the Call

Share this: