Tag: steve jobs

Posted on

Shoe Shopping

shoe

I went shoe shopping with my partner the past two weekends, and I’ll be the first to plead ignorance to the difference between the B and D suffix for shoe sizes. And even after two weekends, I’m still learning.

I’ve never looked much into shoes. Having spent much of my early life bathed in chlorine (so much that at one point, my hair was brown with blond tips. FYI, for those I’ve never met in person before, I sport naturally black hair.), I’ve spent more time choosing the right $300-400 swimsuit than what I’d wear on my two lower appendages the other eight hours of the day. All that to say, I’m ill-equipped to speak the language of sneakerheads and running shoe geeks.

But just as I’m still learning how shoe geeks around the world understand the finer nuances of heel to toe drop impacting ankle versus knee strain, most founders who haven’t spent the time understanding the nuances of VCs think all money is green. In fact, just last month, I spoke with a founder I randomly met at an event who said, “Money is money.”

And he’s not completely wrong. There is some truth to it. At the end of the day, as investors, we sell money. Moreover, most investors who promise to be helpful are not. As well-intentioned as they are at the time of investment, most fall short of being truly helpful. There are multiple studies that show that founders believe a huge majority of their investors are not helpful.

That said, one of my investor buddies said something quite interesting to me earlier this week. Many founders see investors as saviors not partners. A source of capital to save them when they’re near the gates of hell, but not while they’re building their stairway to heaven. All that to say, as someone who’s been an operator, now a “VC”, but also someone who invests in other VCs, here are some of the nuances I’ve really come to appreciate over the years that I overlooked when I first stepped into the world of entrepreneurship.

Consensus and conviction-driven decision making

Some firms are consensus-driven. Others are conviction-driven. The former requires majority or unanimous buy-in. The latter doesn’t. Neither is universally better than the other, but knowing how decisions are made is extremely helpful. Not only to know who else you need to convince on the team, but also to know how the firm will help you post-investment.

The former is usually a firm where carry is split equally among all partners, so all partners are theoretically incented to see every portfolio company succeed. So as a founder, if you want to rely on the expertise and network of the collective partnership, these are the firms you should pursue. The latter, the conviction-driven ones, are most helpful if you really want one specific partner’s experience. They’ll be the person who takes the board seat. Opportunistically, they may ask for 1-2 junior team members to also have board observer seats. The downside is when and if this partner leaves the firm, there may be a gaping hole in governance as well as interest in the continued success of your company. But otherwise, this will be the partner you will have on speed dial.

I shared a presentation I made recently on LinkedIn. Of which, I share that three kinds of friends in the world. When shit hits the fan at 3AM in the morning…

  1. There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And they go back to sleep.
  2. There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And begrudgingly pick up.
  3. And there’s the friend you call. And as they’re picking up the phone, they’ve got their pants on already and are running out the door with their keys.

Conviction-driven firms, where the partner that pounds the table for you will likely be on you board, or even if not, they’re going to be the third friend. At consensus-driven firms, and I’m clearly being reductive here, you’re more likely — not always — to have the reluctant one or sleepers.

Then it comes down to how the team is compensated. Not something most founders can find out or ask out, but how carry is distributed for each fund matters.

Disagreeableness

I’ve realized a lot of the best investors are quite disagreeable. They have their opinions and are quite vocal about them.

A lot of them quite often score incredibly low on investor review sites. Of course, some just score low on NPS purely because their assholes. But I want to caveat. Assholes are often disagreeable, but not all disagreeable people are assholes.

But it takes a lot of courage to have a contrarian viewpoint that one can back up. You don’t have to agree with it. But it matters. More often than not, these folks will also have negative references. For an LP evaluating VCs, that’s ok. Negative is always better than neutral references. The latter means you’re easily forgettable.

Regardless of whether you agree with these investors or not (equally, if not more true, in great founders), they make you stop and think. And that pause to think makes you a more well-rounded professional, and makes your own opinions more robust when you choose to adopt or not adopt said piece of advice.

There’s a great Steve Jobs line, which I think is quite applicable here. “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Great investors are troublemakers. In a good way.

P.S. To the three verified troublemakers I know who are reading this blogpost, can’t wait for your debut.

Small talk

Small talk was definitely one of those things I was rather dismissive of earlier in my career. Who da hell cares about the weather? Or what you did over the weekend?

But over the years, I realize some of the best investors are remarkably good at this. Not in the sense that they know how to ask great weather questions, but they learn how to build rapport early and quickly. And even better, they get a founder comfortable, honest, and candid about where they are at.

No one’s perfect. Every investor gets that. Most founders often pretend that they are. But a great investor is great at helping a founder realize they don’t have to be, and also get to understand a founder from a personal level. Not jumping straight into the pitch. Or give me your metrics. Or how much are you raising at how high of a valuation?

Radical candor

Borrowing this phrase from the amazing Kim Scott, the best investors are upfront with expectations. They don’t waste your time. Some even go as far as to share what their incentives are. And the harsh reality that they may be wrong many times before they’re right. They don’t beat around the bush. They don’t delay the inevitable. They’re great at ripping bandages off quickly, so they can prioritize their focus on other matters that require more attention. They have tough conversations early and synchronously. The last thing one can ever say about them is that they aren’t thoughtful. It seems remarkably simple, but most cannot do just that.

To be fair, it’s sometimes easier said than done. Even for myself, and I would not even dare to put myself in the category of great, I’ve been berated, gaslit, and shamed (haha!) for giving and attempting to give honest feedback to founders and investors. In fact, I was introed to a fund manager recently for the purpose of giving feedback. When I realized a couple red flags about her fund (namely her raising a $100M fund with no track record), I asked if she wanted feedback. To which, she replied with something to the effect that she only takes feedback from people who invest and that I didn’t deserve to give her feedback.

So I can see why some managers are averse to giving any.

Raising junior talent

I was reminded of this in my recent episode with Rick Zullo. And I noticed Rick is really good at giving credit and lifting up his team. In a soon-to-be-released episode, Eric Bahn from Hustle Fund does the same. I’ve asked him to speak at events before and he’s often referred one of his junior team members to the event. Not as a “I don’t want to do this, so someone else should”, but as a “I believe XX person will be a great future leader of this firm, and I believe others need to hear her insights.” And he’s been right every time.

Building an institutional firm takes more than one person. It takes a village. To build a legacy also requires more than one generation. I often see great investors taking less credit and giving a lot more to their team. Those often hidden from the limelight.

Discipline

Every great investor I know does something consistently every day. They set ground rules and while it’s less so for others, they hold themselves accountable to do so. Whether it’s a cup of coffee brewed from home every morning, or going to the gym on a daily basis or quality time with family or calling their significant other at a set time every day, I have yet to meet an investor who can’t keep to a promise they made to themselves consistently.

Venture capital is a long game, and it’s very possible for these multi-decade games, to be lucky at least once. Good investors, at some point, hit a unicorn. Great investors can discover many before others do. But any more than twice requires extreme discipline and the ability to say no to things that are good to make room for the great. And it’s so much harder than one might think.

And the simplest proxy to an investor’s ability to do so is their ability to fulfill promises to themselves when no one else is looking.

In closing

    At the end of the day, not all shoes are the same. Just like not all VCs are. But if all you need is to get from Point A to Point B, and you don’t care for what kind of support you get along the way, VCs, like shoes, may all be the same.

    Photo by Hunter Johnson 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.

    Posted on

    The Superpower of Being Underestimated

    underestimated, rejection, star

    The Warriors went through one hell of a season. Even as someone who doesn’t live and breathe basketball, watching Stephen Curry this past season, especially during the finals with the Celtics was a thrill out of this world. He is undeniably one of the greats! Yet it’s fascinating to think that the world didn’t always see him as such. From being a 3-star recruit to the 256th-ranked player in 2006 to 7th pick in 2009, Curry’s gone a long way.

    Though he recently won an Academy Award for Best Original Score for his music on Dune, Hans Zimmer‘s early music career was not easy. He had been thrown out of eight schools and only had two weeks of piano lessons. Yet today he is undeniably one of the greatest composers of our time.

    Comment
    byu/realhanszimmer from discussion
    inIAmA
    Source: Hans Zimmer’s Reddit AMA

    When Stan Lee first pitched Spider-Man, his publisher thought it was “the worst idea I have ever heard.” The publisher himself told one of the greatest storytellers: “First of all, people hate spiders, so you can’t call a book Spider-Man. Secondly he can’t be a teenager—teenagers can only be sidekicks. And third, he can’t have personal problems if he’s supposed to be a superhero—don’t you know who a superhero is?'” The rest… is history.

    In the making of Star Wars, George Lucas was rejected time and time again – from Disney to United Artists to Universal. And the one bet that 20th Century Fox took on him was for only a budget of $8M, that eventually became a $10M budget, when at the time, the best blockbuster films all had budgets of $20-30M. Yet, today Star Wars stands as one of the greatest cultural assets of the 20th and 21st century.

    In the world of startups, the world’s most valuable companies are worth more than four times and raised half as much as the world’s most funded companies. Funding, in many ways, is a proxy for investor optimism in the early days that this company will be the next big thing. But investors, like any other person, can be wrong. In fact, startup investors are often wrong more often than they’re right. But it also goes to say the world’s best companies are non-obvious, in the non-consensus. In other words, underestimated.

    Source: Founder Collective

    As the above graphic shows, even if one picks right, we still grossly underestimate the potential of outliers. After all, humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities:

    • In 2012, Canva was rejected by over 100 Silicon Valley investors. Now it is a growing $40 billion business of gargantuan proportions.
    • The Post-it note was an result of a failed experiment to create stronger adhesives. But Dr. Spencer Silver, its inventor, kept at it, which led to his nickname as “Mr. Persistent” because he wouldn’t give up. Today, Post-it notes are sold in more than 100 countries, and over 50 billion are produced every year.
    • Google, one of the most recognizable names today, struggled to raise capital and find customers in the early days. Who needed another search engine? For 1.5 years, every search company approached by Larry and Sergey to consider Google’s tech turned them down. The pair funded Google on their credit cards and couldn’t even afford to hire a designer so regressed to minimalism.
    • Tope Awotona, founder of Calendly, started three failed businesses and emptied his 401k to fund Calendly. Yet despite his hustle and persistence, most VCs he talked to turned him down. Despite starting in 2013, it wasn’t till 2021 that Calendly had their A-round. Calendly took much longer to get the attention of external funding than many of its counterparts. The company is now one of the most popular scheduling tools and worth $3B.

    But even when people got it right, they still underestimated the upside.

    • Even when Kleiner eventually backed Google, legendary investor John Doerr couldn’t believe it when Larry Page believed that Google could get revenues of $10B.
    • When Bessemer invested in Shopify, Bessemer thought that the best possible outcome for Shopify was a 3% chance of the company exiting at $400M. As of the time of this essay, it’s worth over 100 times more with a market cap of $43B.
    • If you invested in Amazon on the first day in 1998 at $5, most people would have sold at $85 in 1999 – a 17x in less than two years. But if they held to today, they would have made a multiple north of 600x. That said, selling itself is more of an art than a science.

    … And the list goes on.

    As Warren Buffett says, “the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” Our fallacy with estimation is painfully obvious in hindsight, but dubitably unclear in foresight.

    Early on in my venture career, an investor once told me a profound statement. One that I still remember to this day. The best ideas – and often the leaders of tomorrow – often seem crazy at first. And because they’re crazy, they’re nonobvious. They’re in the non-consensus.

    As Steve Jobs says, “the ones who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” The world’s most transformative individuals and businesses take on many more headwinds than those optimizing for local maxima. But history shows us that those that dream big consistently outperform those optimizing for marginal improvement. While there is nothing wrong with the latter, I hope the above anecdotes serve as a reminder rejection is not a sign of failure. Rather, it’s a sign that most people have yet to see what you see.

    Your job is to teach them to see what you see. After all, the only difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see a vision.

    Photo by Aziz Acharki on Unsplash

    Edit: Added in Stan Lee’s story.

    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!

    Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

    Posted on

    #unfiltered #66 Humans and Nonlinear Thinking

    Humans are terrible at understanding percentages. I’m one of them. An investor I had the opportunity to work with on multiple occasions once told me. People can’t tell better; people can only tell different. It’s something I wrestle with all the time when I hear founder pitches. Everyone claims they’re better than the incumbent solution. Whatever is on the market now. Then founders tell me they improve team efficiency by 30% or that their platform helps you close 20% more leads per month. And I know, I know… that they have numbers to back it up. Or at least the better founders do. But most investors and customers can’t tell. Everything looks great on paper, but what do they mean?

    When the world’s wrapped in percentages, and 73.6% of all statistics are made up, you have to be magnitudes better than the competition, not just 10%, 20%, 30% better. In fact, as Sarah Tavel puts it, you have to be 10x better (and cheaper). And to be that much better, you have to be different.

    And keep it simple. As Steve Jobs famously said that if the Mac needed an instruction manual, they would have failed in design. Your value-add should be simple. Concise. “We all have busy lives, we have jobs, we have interests, and some of us have children. Everyone’s lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don’t have time to learn this stuff, and everything’s getting more complicated… We both don’t have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or a phone.”

    If you need someone to learn and sit down – listen, read, or watch you do something, you’ve lost yourself in complexity.

    “Big-check” sales is a game of telephone. For enterprise sales or if you’re working with healthcare providers, the sales cycle is long. Six to nine months, maybe a year. The person you end up convincing has to shop the deal with the management team, the finance team, and other constituents.

    For most VCs writing checks north of a million, they need to bring it to the partnership meeting. Persuade the other partners on the product and the vision you sold them.

    And so if your product isn’t different and simple, it’ll get lost in translation. Think of it this way. Every new person in the food chain who needs to be convinced will retain 90% of what the person before them told them. A 10% packet loss. The tighter you keep your value prop, the more effective it’ll be. The longer you need to spend explaining it with buzzwords and percentages, the more likely the final decision maker will have no idea why you’re better.

    Humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities. While we think we can, we never fully comprehend the power law. Equally so, sometimes I find it hard to wrap my hear around the fact that 20% of my work lead to 80% of the results. While oddly enough, 80% of my inputs will only account for 20% of my results. The latter often feels inefficient. Like wasted energy. Why bother with most work if it isn’t going to lead to a high return on investment.

    Yet at the same time, it’s so far to tell what will go viral and what won’t. Time, energy, capital investments that we expect to perform end up not. While every once in a while, a small project will come out of left field and make all the work leading up to it worth it.

    When I came out with my blogpost on the 99 pieces of unsolicited advice for founders last month, I had an assumption this would be a topic that my readers and the wider world would be interested in. At best, performing twice as well than my last “viral” blogpost.

    Cup of Zhou readership as of April 2022

    Needless to say, it blew my socks off and then some. My initial 99 “secrets”, as my friends would call it, accounted for 90% of the rightmost bar in the above graph. And the week after, I published my 99 “secrets” for investors. While it achieved some modest readership in the venture community and heartwarmingly enough was well-received by investors I respected, readership was within expectations of my previous blogposts.

    My second piece wasn’t necessarily better or worse in the quality of its content, but it wasn’t different. While I wanted to leverage the momentum of the first, it just didn’t catch the wave like I expected it to.

    Of course, as you might imagine, I’m not alone. Nikita Bier‘s tbh grew from zero to five million downloads in nine weeks. And sold to Facebook for $100 million. tbh literally seemed like an overnight success. Little do most of the public know that, Nikita and his team at Midnight Labs failed 14 times to create apps people wanted over seven years.

    When Bessemer first invested in Shopify, they thought the best possible outcome for the company would be an exit value of $400 million. While not necessarily the best performing public stock, its market cap, as of the time I’m writing this blogpost, is still $42 billion. A 100 times bigger than the biggest possible outcome Bessemer could imagine.

    Humans are terrible at committing to progress. The average person today is more likely to take one marshmallow now than two marshmallows later.

    Between TikTok and a book, many will choose the former. Between a donut and a 30-minute HIT workout, the former is more likely to win again. Repeated offences of immediate gratification lead you down a path of short-term utility optimization. Simply put, between the option of improving 1% a day and regressing 1% a day, while not explicit, most will find more comfort in the latter alternative.

    James Clear has this beautiful visualization of what it means to improve 1% every day for a year. If you focus on small improvements every day for a year, you’re going to be 37 times better than you were the day you started.

    While the results of improving 1% aren’t apparent in close-up, they’re superhuman in long-shot.

    Source: James Clear

    Photo by Thomas Park 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!

    Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

    Posted on

    How to Get Investors to Just Ask One Question: “How Can I Invest?”

    After recently tuning into an incredible founder’s most recent investor update, I stumbled across a shoutout once again to Silicon Valley storytelling legend Siqi Chen. It wasn’t the first and surely won’t be the last time I find such kudos from a mutual friend. I’ve been a huge fan since his 2019 presentation on presentations, and there’ve been multiple times his name has surfaced in a conversation with friends. I’ve also publicly written about just how amazing he is. That day, I felt the cosmos telling me today was the day. Something just felt right. A swig of that Felix Felicis, if you know what I mean. In hindsight, I guess I could have asked for a warm intro. But my enthusiasm just couldn’t wait.

    My question was simple:

    “What do you think sets a top 0.1% story from a top 5%er? What sets a timeless story apart from a box office hit?”

    “Hm, it’s a good question. Maybe two things: ‘proof of work’. In other words, founder-market fit. Authenticity can be faked so ‘proof of work’, in terms of background, experience, expertise for your authenticity, is valuable. The second thing is just sheer effort, finesse, and practice.”

    He ended his answer with a quote you might find quite familiar from his storytelling presentation:

    “Magic is just spending more time on a trick that anyone would ever expect to be worth it.” – Penn & Teller

    And naturally, I had to follow up. “What are the top 1-2 questions you ask yourself to help you stress test if you’re telling epic stories? Or if it’s more applicable, questions you ask others to see if your story resonated with them?”

    To which, he left me with a rather curious statement:

    “The stress test for me is when, after the story, there are no questions other than ‘How can I invest?’ This is probably the biggest hack I have for a pitch, which is that contrary to popular belief that questions are an expression of interest, all questions are bad.”

    I paused. All. Questions. Are. Bad. To a person who makes a living out of asking questions, you can damn well be sure that whatever I was thinking, whatever I was doing, whatever I was going to say disappeared in a moment’s grace, like a midsummer night’s dream. He already had my attention, but now, he had my curiosity.

    He goes on: “The correct way to look at questions is that they are akin to a compiler error in your pitch: It is the tell tale sign of objections politely withheld until you were done talking. It should be your goal to adjust your pitch such that those questions never come up in the first place.”

    Needless to say, as all contrarian sayings went, I found Siqi’s words quite provocative. I hadn’t yet come to terms with his permutation of punctuated words strung into sentences. His words, while in plain English, arrived at my ears in a manner that was quite foreign. But the more he elaborated, the more sense it made.

    “You know how when a salesperson is trying to sell you something, whether it’s a SaaS product or a set of steak knives, and you don’t want to buy it, but you’re listening politely?” explains Siqi. “You already have an objection and you have already decided to not buy it. And that objection you’re just holding in your head until they’re done talking.

    “The first question you ask after they’re done talking is basically that objection. Once you’ve thought about that objection as the listener, you’re no longer paying attention. That objection is all you’re thinking about.

    “Here’s a concrete example. Let’s say the first question you think of is ‘it’s a competitive space, how do you think about competition?’

    “That means they were thinking about competition for some unknown period of time while you were pitching, probably from the minute you started. And they already decided to not buy.”

    His next few words are worth underscoring. If words carried weight, shine, and could be worn on your fourth finger after an elaborate ceremony, this was it. “The way you debug it is by preventing that question in the first place, for example, by inserting a slide at the beginning explaining: ‘This is a really competitive space, but here’s why we’re doing what we’re doing’. Then you defuse the question and it doesn’t come up in the first place.

    “A good pitch removes those objects in your head so that you end up buying. One way to improve your pitch is to systematically remove questions until you’re left with just one: ‘How can I invest?’”

    In the deck he shared back in 2019, on slide 19, he has another two lines that are equally as powerful and read: “We unconsciously try as hard as we can to fit new facts into existing opinions. Based on existing opinions we make decisions that make us feel good, or the least bad.”

    Unfortunately, Siqi’s right.

    How often have you brought up a new fact that contradicts with what your mom/dad/grandma/grandpa believes and they respond with “Don’t believe everything you read online?” And then, read a “fact” from an unconfirmed source that affirms their beliefs and they respond with “I told you so?”

    Investors, like any other human, are no different. Questions, therefore, are implicit personal opinions reworded explicitly, with the expectation that the facts you bring up fit in their existing mental models. And if the facts don’t match up, “You’re too early for us”. Or as they tell themselves, “The founders have not given us the facts we look for to fit in the frameworks we have.”

    Then again, as founders, you may not be looking to fall into a pre-ordained mold. In fact, the most world-shattering businesses never fit into the mold. So neither should you. Steve Jobs famously said:

    “Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

    So, if you only have facts, stick with the facts that reaffirm an investor’s opinion of a great startup. Admittedly, that can only be true for the top 0.1% of businesses out there. The vast majority of startups don’t have numbers that fit such a high benchmark honed from years of pattern recognition. A benchmark investors have high conviction in. Certainty, one might say. The great writer Charlie Kaufman once said, “Because when you’re certain, you stop being curious. And here’s the one thing I know about the thing you’re certain about. You’re wrong.”

    The best thing about this business – about being an investor – is that it keeps people humble. A fact, unfortunately, many investors forget. So stay curious. And tell us a story so compelling we can imagine no other.

    Or as Siqi puts it, “The goal of a great presentation is to create emotions that persuade people to take action.” The founders don’t just share their passion. Their passion is contagious. It spreads like a virus. And whoever is infected shares it with the people around them, which if your story is compelling enough, those people share it with their friends. In a vast game of telephone, the more relatable and inspiring your story is, the longer the game of telephone. Facts become stories. Stories become tales. Tales become legends.

    The best stories don’t just share facts. They inspire. They weave facts together in a way so compelling that there are no more questions. The world is filled with limitless amounts of data – most of which are seemingly disparate and meaningless. The best storytellers give the chaos of data meaning. They give data purpose.

    In reality, you’re not going to get the pitch down in v1. Practice it, especially with people who have a critical eye with words. They don’t have to be investors. Probably not just with your co-founders and team members because they’re biased. They’ll make lapses in judgment because they already understand the problem space well enough. So well, they won’t have realized you skipped steps in your logic. Practice it with writers, lawyers, speechwriters, marketers, influencers, that Redditor that deconstructs every single presidential speech, and video editors, especially those who edit meme videos. Then when you pitch it to investors, the goal is that they don’t withhold objections because they simply don’t have any.

    I can’t help but recall a great line by Robert McKee, “At story climax, you must deliver a scene beyond which the audience can imagine no other.” Equally so, by the end of your pitch, you must deliver a solution beyond which the audience can imagine no other.

    Photo by Aaron Burden 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!

    Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

    Posted on

    The Investor Purity Test

    Many investors often take their job quite seriously. And they should. Imagine if your surgeon didn’t take the utmost care to do her job in the operating theatre. Or if your defense attorney walked in a courtroom lacking preparation. Investors, while not as life critical as a surgeon or your defense attorney, are in the business of selling and appreciating money. It’s as simple as that. And yes, more often than not, we use niche jargon. Though I’m not quite sure if it’s to isolate outsiders or to make ourselves sound smarter. Or both. Most conversations I’ve had to date with other VCs while insightful, are often, to the layman, quite esoteric.

    So as a welcome break from the bustle of Silicon Valley, VC Twitter, and 30-minute coffee chats, I created the Investor Purity Test. In part for the memes. In part as a reference guide to those who want to grow to be more active VC investors.

    Your purity starts at 100. In this “quiz”, there’s a checklist of 100 items. And with every item you check off, you slowly lose your purity to capitalism, specifically around early-stage financing. In a way, think of it like a VC “personality” test.

    Have fun!

    Top photo by Quino Al 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!

    Posted on

    Battle of the Supers: Superpowers and Super-Weaknesses

    mario, supermario, superpower, startup

    For today’s blogpost I’m going to try something new. It was requested by a reader of this blog, which for anonymity’s sake, I’ll call P. For those who live a busy life, prefer audio over text, or just find my font choice appalling, I thought I’d record myself reading the below text. Think of it like the audiobook version of this essay.

    If you love or hate this format, I’d love to hear what you think. Feel free to comment below, or DM me across any of my channels. Any and all feedback welcome with open arms.

    And thank you for inspiring me, P!

    Two weeks ago, I happened to write about saying “yes” to more things. But what do you say “yes” to?

    Over the years, I’ve used many different versions of the question: What would you do if you knew you would fail? Or, What would you do regardless of the outcome of the endeavor? And as long as the reason for doing so contains any combination of:

    • Skill acquisition
    • Invaluable experience
    • Or relationship/friendship that I value more than the project itself

    … it’s a “Yes” for me. The “Yes” becomes an exploration of depth. An optimization strategy for my strengths. My superpowers. It’s something I learned from quite a few of my mentors over the years – both in an official and unofficial capacity.

    Subsequently, I’ve had this belief for a long time, which will probably cause some uproar somewhere, that we shouldn’t optimize our life around reducing our weaknesses. But rather, focus our time on maximizing our strengths. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever work to ameliorate our incompetencies. But:

    1. Just enough that we meaningfully reduce our risk of ruin. Any more, there are diminishing returns over time. Forgiving my esoteric economic jargon, we should only work on our weaknesses so that we don’t lose our ability to survive. For example, if you don’t know how to cook, you shouldn’t aim to be the best Michelin-starred chef in the world, but just enough so that you don’t starve to death. Assuming your goal in life isn’t in the culinary world.
    2. Mitigate our weaknesses that are the most adjacent to our core strengths. For instance, in my opinion, one of my greatest relative strengths is my ability to ask questions. I am by no means the best, but compared to the rest of my skills, this is one I find myself shining in a bit more than my peers. Which effectively meant I was always interested in what others were up to and how they thought. A mentor figure told me years ago that it didn’t matter how interested I was in others, no one had a reason to be interested in me. Which meant that one of my greatest and most adjacent weaknesses was to be interesting.

    People who have superpowers often carry super-weaknesses. The greater their superpower, usually the greater their weakness. Humans aren’t great multitaskers. We were never designed to be. If you’re saying yes to one thing, you’re saying no to a hundred other things. Are you willing to shoulder that opportunity cost? Sometimes you are, but be very deliberate about it.

    Fairly recently, I was presenting to an amazing cast of board members in a board meeting. There was a general consensus around the fact that we lacked focus as an organization, yet we were sitting on a wealth of talent. To which, one of our board members redirected us to Steve Jobs’ infamous speech when we returned to Apple in 1997. One line in particular stood out to me: “Apple is executing wonderfully on many of the wrong things.“

    He follows up to say: “The ability of the organization to execute is really high though. I mean, I’ve met some extraordinary people at Apple. There’s a lot of great people at Apple. They’re doing some of the wrong things because the plan has been wrong.”

    Taking a step back, as humans, as working professionals, as entrepreneurs in each and every one of our own rights, we often “execute wonderfully on many of the wrong things.” Often times, that’s on our own weaknesses, rather than our strengths.

    Living in a simulation

    Imagine that we live in a simulation – an MMORPG. Or, massively multiplayer online role-playing game. We start off with a finite number of stat points. The starting number of stat points varies from person to person, depending on your socio-economic class and your given genetic code. You can allocate those stat points however you want.

    You can spread them all out evenly, where you’ll never have any true weakness, but neither any true strength. You’ve hedged your risk of ruin. It’s going to be really hard for you to lose, but you can never really win.

    On the flip side of the token, you can minmax your build, using gaming terminology. Double down on a stat, to achieve the equivalent of a superpower, compared to your peers. But often times, if you are maximizing on a superpower, you’ve minimized your proficiency in another area. Luckily, as in any game, and as in reality, you can pick up tools and make friendships along the way that will supplement your weaknesses with their strengths.

    Of course, as all analogies go, there are exceptions. But as far as I know, there are far fewer exceptions than those that fit into this analogy. And, technically, our ability to level up is infinite. The only upper limit is that, like everyone else, we have 24 hours in a day and a finite number of years to live.

    So, where am I going with this?

    Super-tools for (super)weaknesses

    What do you not want or don’t care to have a superpower in? For the skills and tasks you use everyday, but don’t care to be the best in the world for, leverage software and tools to automate your work, so you only need to spend the minimal amount of time or energy to make sure it doesn’t become a stressor for your day. In the above gaming analogy, you use items to compensate for specific stat deficiencies. The more efficient the “item”/tool, the less energy you need to expend to make up for a super-weakness.

    Here are the tools I use to supercharge my day, so I can spend more time enhancing my superpowers and less time mitigating my super-weaknesses.

    Descript

    Descript makes me feel like a god. As much as I love Adobe Premiere Pro, it had an incredibly high learning curve. But once you got it, they have some of the most robust tools on the market. On Descript, I love how I can edit an audio or video clip just by deleting words in the transcript. And if I mess up, and I do quite a bit, I can always voiceover in the editing process to make myself sound smarter than I actually am. Even better, I can drag and drop music, video and sound effects. If you’re listening to the audio version of this essay, you might have noticed I don’t have any of the afore-mentioned effects. The goal here was just to get you my thoughts as quickly as possible, without trapping myself in audio perfectionism.

    If the Adobe Creative Suite is the endgame, Descript is the early game. And it helps you ace it remarkably well.

    Notion

    Notion is a dark horse (for me). I’ve seen startup data rooms, personal blogs, internal wikis, and even VC investment theses and fund strategies being produced on Notion. It always seemed like a nice-to-have. In all fairness, I didn’t give it the benefit of the doubt it deserved until late last year. Its greatest ability isn’t the ability to create a robust website or the prettiest blog. Its greatest ability is that it gets people to put ideas and thoughts on paper as quickly as possible. The barrier to entry is so low that its greatest competitors are note-taking apps, like Evernote or Google Keep, for early users. Then, you can go from notes to fully functional site in minutes.

    And ever since, I’ve been a geek over it. There’s this great thread on Twitter by @empirepowder about all the applications you can build using Notion extremely quickly – from creating a blog from scratch to publishing a course to tracking analytics on your page to the ultimate tweet tracking tool.

    For many of us, the hardest part about doing anything is starting. Notion solves that.

    Undock

    Take scheduling as another example. I know very few people, if at all, who want to be the best scheduler in the world. I know I don’t. But I find myself spending an undeserving amount of time trying to schedule meetings, rather than actually having meetings or being productive. Enter Undock. “The fastest way to find time to meet with anyone.” That’s from their website. And it’s true. When I’m in my Gmail scheduling calls/meetings with founders or investors, I never leave my email tab nor do I ever touch my mouse. No matter how many people are on the email thread, I can find time for a meeting, on average, in two seconds. That’s no joke. I timed myself.

    Having and empowering others to have superpowers is literally in their DNA.

    Superhuman

    I’ve heard many great things about Superhuman, and about a quarter as many bad things about the platform. Superhuman’s claim to fame is being able to get you to inbox zero via one of the most seamless and fastest email experiences ever – through shortcut keys, follow-up reminders, and social media insights just to name a few. Their user interface makes it incredibly easy to respond from one email to the next, even when you’re offline. They have this 100ms rule, where every interaction should be faster than 100ms to make communication feel instantaneous. And they do deliver.

    Many of its customers include investors and founders. Busy people who have more unread emails in their inbox than they care to count. Most of the bad reviews I hear from friends and colleagues are that $30/month is just too expensive.

    There are many ways to look at the $30 price tag. It’s $12 more than Netflix’s premium plan, and Netflix serves you new content you might not have access to otherwise. Superhuman serves you the same content that would have been yours anyway, just in a new light. On the flip side, $30/month is $1/day. Less than a cup of coffee a day, assuming you buy your coffee every day. But even if you only bought $3 coffee twice a week, $30/month would still be cheaper.

    Or in a different lens, Superhuman’s core audience – founders, investors, busy people who have hundreds of emails a week, if not a day – their time is worth at or more than $30/hour. So, if on a 160-work month, Superhuman collectively saves their customers more than an hour of time every month, then it’s worth it to them.

    The way I look at it, it’s a bargain. But I don’t use it. Why? It’s not because it’s too expensive. Neither because I don’t have enough emails to go through. But rather, I happened to optimize my email workflow before I even heard of Superhuman. I’ll save that topic for a later blogpost. But if you don’t have a way to get to inbox zero (unless you don’t care. I have a number of friends who have tens of thousands of unread in their inbox. That scares me)… but if you do care about the piling mound of emails, Superhuman’s really got it in the bag.

    In closing

    And maybe this post might serve helpful in reframing on how you can live your most optimal life. Supercharge your strengths. And find the best tools and mental models you can to protect your downside. It’s okay if you’re not the best at the latter; you don’t have to be.

    I mentioned a few of the tools I use, but your mileage may and probably should vary.

    While there are tools out there that supercharge your ability to execute and perform, equally so, you’ll find there are amazing people out there that complement your weaknesses. Friends, colleagues, co-founders, life partners. In the words of Steve Jobs, find and meet “extraordinary people.” To do so, as my mentor told me, you’ll have to be interested and interesting.

    Stay openminded and stay frosty out there!

    Photo by Cláudio Luiz Castro 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!

    Posted on

    #unfiltered #44 Le Raison d’Etre for Social Experiments

    social experiment, curiosity

    Over the past few weeks, a number of people have independently asked me, “What do you hope to accomplish with your social experiments?” And “What are you hoping to solve through your social experiments?”

    Usually when people ask, I say things like, “Helping the world feel a little smaller, closer, and a whole lot more meaningful.” Or “Helping strangers become friends in minutes.” While it’s all true, I came to that conclusion after I started. Yet, the real reason I started was simply out of curiosity. I didn’t have an end goal in mind. I didn’t have a hypothesis I was trying to prove. Frankly, I just had a yearning knowing I’d find answers, but not knowing what kind of answers I would find.

    For the longest time, I felt pressured to give a reason. Particularly, one that was results-oriented. In a world, where outcomes speak for themselves, I felt that a genesis starting from pure open-ended curiosity wasn’t enough. The reasons I gave were less for others, but more for myself. This self-inflicted feeling of inadequacy. Infinitesimally small, but still lurking around.

    Walter Isaacson‘s recent interview with Tim Ferriss led me to introspect once again. Known for his incredibly intricate studies on the lives of Steve Jobs, Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, just to name a few, and most recently, Jennifer Doudna, he said:

    “Be curious about everything. All walks of life. Arts, and sciences, technology, and the humanities. That’s what Steve Jobs did. He had one foot in the arts, another foot in technology, and he did not make a distinction between those two. That’s what Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man is about. It’s a work of art, and it’s a work of science, and he didn’t make a distinction between those two. And for Jennifer Doudna, she doesn’t make a great distinction between the life sciences and the humanities. And by being curious about all things, she’s about to see the patterns in nature.”

    It’s funny that it took a message from someone else for it to resonate, no matter how many times I’ve told myself the same message. While I can’t even begin to compare my selfish curiosity to the greats of Doudna, Jobs or Da Vinci, but like them, I start from a state of open inquiry. I, a humble traveler, merely enjoy the meandering adventure my curiosity leads me on. As my French high school teacher used to say to us all the time, “Bon voyage!”

    Photo by Joseph Rosales 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!

    Posted on

    Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon

    scale, too soon, founders, startup growth metrics

    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:

    The snapshot

    1. Your code architecture looks beautiful.
    2. You’re onboarding expensive experienced talent.
    3. Your cultural values lag behind the talent you hire (plan to hire).
    4. You’re bundling the market before you unbundle the needs.
    Continue reading “Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon”
    Posted on

    How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley

    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.

    Continue reading “How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley”
    Posted on

    The Four Traits of World-Class Startup Founders

    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.

    1. Insatiable curiosity
    2. Bias to action
    3. Empathy
    4. Promise fulfillment
    Continue reading “The Four Traits of World-Class Startup Founders”
    Proudly powered by WordPress