Categories
Startups

Day 250 and Getting to Know You

I don’t really like musical theater (it’s the people sorry) but I’ve been humming a tune from The King and I called “Getting to Know You” as I codify my process for meeting founders and startups. It turns out Julie Andrews through Rogers and Hammerstein lyrics may be a viable strategy for finding out if someone is a fit for Chaotic.Capital. The actual play is racist, colonial nonsense but you know take art for art’s sake.

Getting to know you

Getting to feel free and easy

When I am with you

Getting to know what to say

Haven’t you noticed

Suddenly I’m bright and breezy?

Because of all the beautiful and new

Things I’m learning about you

Day by day

She’s talking about being a teacher and getting to know her pupils but it’s also maybe about falling in love, but I like the sentiment that learning “beautiful and new” things “day by day” feels bright, breezy, free and easy. That’s a good template for relationships of all kinds.

Pitching is none of those things. It’s practiced, formal, and exhausting. It may be a necessary evil for founders as you need concise and clear communications about what you are doing and why it requires capital. But I don’t think it’s the best way to get to know people. Getting to know someone should feel easy.

I like to get to know someone over the course of conversations. My preference is through asynchronous communication mediums like chat, direct message or email. There is something about the volleying back and forth of information that helps me more. I like a back and forth that is informed by revealing thought process but also context and background. I’ll chat with virtually anyone and keep my direct messages open on Twitter because I value conversation so much.

I generally don’t feel that phone or video calls are that helpful to me in getting to know someone initially. I don’t mind short 10 minute bursts. What I do dislike is the planned hour long call for an initial conversation. Rarely am I able to be emotionally and physically present for something like that if I am not already interested or invested in story.

But if we’ve had conversations through Twitter, direct message or email where I have more context and connection then it’s possible I can be present for you. But I wouldn’t recommend asking for an hour synchronous medium as your first interaction with me. I’ll do it as a favor to someone now and again but I almost always resent it.

I’d rather get to know you over time before I’m trapped in a room for an hour to put it bluntly. I promise this is for both of our benefit. You wouldn’t take someone on a two week vacation for a second date so why would you hinge your chance to work or get investment from someone by insistence on spending an hour together right off the bat. Let it simmer a bit. Give me an appetite for wanting to help you. Then you won’t be able to get me off the phone or Signal. I will be your most available investor if you take the time to show me who you are.

So go ahead. Message me. Message a bunch. Send an email. If you don’t hear from me message some more. If I’m being evasive tell me straight me. But the end goal should be that getting to know you is free and easy. And you will be able to tell if I’m excited. Don’t give up. Just keep the conversation flowing like Julie Andrew’s did.

Categories
Emotional Work Internet Culture

Day 247 and Rooting for You

I watched a viral video of a young white American kid who claims to have quit a 100K job in order to pitch YouTube star Logan Paul for a job. It’s really hard to watch because this poor young man just utterly shits the bed on asking his favorite social celebrity to take a chance on him. He can’t even tell Logan what he is best at. He doesn’t know himself and thus cannot capitalize on his moment in the sun to show his worth. Honestly it will break your heart.

The shitty sad part of watching this kid utterly fail at self advocacy is if you are in a position of power you genuinely want to help people if they are clear about how you can do so. No one wants to say no. We all want to get to yes.

Being asked “what are you good at?” is an empathy driven open ended “get me to yes” kind of question. Logan Paul, never a celebrity I’d have previously associated with emotionally empathic, actually encourages this young fan. Even in a short clip he encourages him.

It breaks my heart a little that this kid doesn’t have anything to say for himself. Even saying something small like “ I’m the best getting groceries quickly” would have given him a chance.

I think the reason this hits me hard is that everyone has emotionally been that young man. Asked someone to help and just utterly bombed. I know I’ve taken a swing and asked powerful connected intelligent people to help me and then subsequently failed to rise to the moment. I carry those emotional failures with me. I think we all do. It’s what drives us to be better. Those moments of defeat can remake us for success. They course correct us. But only if we don’t let don’t let those failures beat us for good. We have to see the patterns that brought it into our life, accept that it’s our failure, and let it improve us.

That’s why it’s so important when you are in a position of saying no to someone to do it with as much grace as Logan Paul. I know it’s a weird sentence to type. We owe it to ourselves to there to hear them at their lowest moment with the hope may eventually become the path to their better self. Because surely someone once did that for you. That’s wisdom.

It’s hard getting a concise answer to “why you” and finding and accepting the truth of what you are truly better than anyone else is at is a lifetime of work. Being able to do it when you are young is what makes for a life that will give you satisfaction instead of disappointment.

I genuinely believe we want to help others get there. I used to hate when someone who turned down one of my pitches would say they “were rooting for me.” I thought it was dismissive. Now I choose to understand that that most people want to help you succeed.

If someone accepts time to talk to you it’s probably because human to human they would like to get to yes. I now take “we’re rooting for you” as sincere. Maybe it’s not in some cases but why not default to good intent first?

Categories
Startups

Day 243 and Delegation

One of the funniest aspects of hustle culture was its insistence on always being “on!” This maxim fought mightily against that other successful management truism; a successful CEO delegates. But how can you always be working if you have also successfully delegated your workload to a top notch team? Which one is it guys?!?!

I guess the logic was that you should always be working on whatever new horizon you has discovered in your perch as visionary founder but also be continually recruiting the best possible people to take on work as you should never be doing that work yourself. But those two directions are in obvious tension.

I think this tension ended up creating founders who exercise control of their anxiety through constantly searching for new ways to show off they were hard at work. We got addicted to busywork. Or at least the appearance of always being hard at work finding a new problem and then hiring talent to own it.

You’d always be finding new blockers at every turn, justifying it as growth and then you’d balloon your team hiring people for the work that you’d just found. I honestly wouldn’t be shocked if this was the driving force behind the trend of showing off your headcount growth.

“Oh we hired 50 people this quarter!” Sure but like were you actually blitzscaling or were you caught in the hustle/delegate hamster wheel? How many of those people actually materially moved your roadmap forward? I would bet at least some of them were just there to give you the emotional safety of claiming to yourself that you’d satisfied both hustle and delegation culture.

Categories
Internet Culture Startups

Day 236 and Founders Who Write

A heuristic I’m playing with for assessing founders is how good they are at writing.

And while this approach to vetting a founder is a practical method (everyone writes) it’s obviously limited. But I think it is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an approximation of founder capacity in a swift and asynchronous way. I like to see examples of founder writing whether it is Tweets, blog posts, technical documentation or a Notion document.

It’s my belief that we’ve overweighted salesmanship, pitching & synchronic communication methods (remember reality distortion fields) which has led to prioritizing messianic style founders. A rousing keynote speech used to be the gold standard. But this may be less relevant as teams go fully remote and more work is done asynchronously. Your capacity to document and communicate meaning at scale is crucial as a founder.

The canonical example of a founder who telegraphed competence and meaning through writing was Joel Spolsky. The Joel on Software blog established him as ur technical writer and gave us documentation culture which blossomed in Stack Overflow.

A more recent example for me is Devin Finzer who I discovered through his technical writing. Long before OpenSea was a clear winner in the NFT space, Devin’s writing caught my attention as his crisp clear articulation on the basics non-fungible tokens was legible to everyone.

My guess is this heuristic of focusing on writing instead of showmanship will improve overall diversity of founders & companies in a portfolio as less bias creeps into asynchronous documentation whereas mirroring & social cues easily tilt pitching in favor of certain classes of people

I’m also keen on folks who like messaging culture. Being able to hop in and out of conversations is crucial to team building & scaling. Those that are happy to DM & chat to build rapport in distributed fashion more easily will succeed at building relationships in a remote first world.

Categories
Startups

Day 203 and Living Rent Free in Our Heads

There are two kinds of startup teams. The ones that forgive each other, and the ones that don’t. If you are very lucky, everyone forgives each other in time. But for the ones that can’t forgive each other, the pain of the experience is a curse. Your failures and weaknesses live in each others’ heads rent free. And that sucks.

I understand how the curse of the unforgivable startup sins get cast. I understand the pain of having people in your life that you cannot imagine forgiving because their sins against you feel too big. Startups are exactly the kind of place where forgiving seems impossible. Why? Building something new is painful.

New life, new business, new art. It hurts to birth something from nothing. Those laws of thermodynamics seem to indicate that energy doesn’t get made or lost, so sure, getting an idea to come into reality has to have an energy cost that comes from somewhere. I’d argue with startups it comes from our will. Maybe our soul. If you aren’t into that then money and time. It has a cost is what I’m saying and we pay it. And when we feel we’ve paid those costs unfairly it’s hard to forgive those whom we blame.

When you’ve given so much of yourself to make a new reality, the pain of it not succeeding is real. It hurts to realize we’ve failed. To come headfirst at the possibility that your sacrifice was for nothing is existential. That the energy you took to build something was for nothing.

With existential problems you’ve got two choices. Face who you are and your part in it or blame it on someone else. It is a lot harder to own existential yourself. If we are feeling like a victim there are people who we can blame. We hired wrong. We had cofounder issues. We couldn’t collaborate well. We had cultural mismatches.

There are endless reasons our failures are shared. And it’s true. Failure never has a single point. It wasn’t just you. But it’s not your cofounder or your teammates fault either. You have to forgive them. They have to forgive you. If you don’t they will live in your head rent free forever. And no one wants that. Find a way to forgive. Find a way to own your own existential failures. It’s not worth losing people over.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 202 and Show Me Anything

I’m lucky to see work from founders at the very earliest stages. If you have a problem you are solving for chaotic world I’m generally interested in seeing it even if it’s just in the idea phase. But you have to show me you’ve got a plan to build a product. Any product is fine. Just show me something! Show me how you have the capacity to build even if you suck at it.

Bobby Goodlatte captured some of the sentiment I feel on the subject well with this exasperated Tweet.

What’s a “builder”? Show me something. Anything. Just show me one pixel you’ve created. That’s what a builder is. That’s why PM’s don’t qualify.

Sometimes it can feel hard to build something, anything, when you are very experienced. This is a problem I’ve seen across all kinds of impressive people. Academics, government folks and higher end finance folks, former c-suite executives. They know what good looks like so anything they can physically make with their own two hands will all look like crap.

I’d even go so far as to suggest there is an inverse relationship between how much you obfuscate your lack of existing product and your credentials. There are other corollaries on that basic theme. How comprehensible your product is right now is inversely related to how extensive your service layer is at the moment.

I see a lot of brilliant, extremely credentialed people solving big problems, but because making money is important they will pitch what amount to service companies without an existing product. But they will use extensive jargon and hand waving visionary opportunities to hide the fact that there isn’t any product layer yet. Which is weird because like eventually I’ll find out right? You wouldn’t want to trick your investors on the state of play.

I’d encourage you to stop trying to hide that fact. Don’t be embarrassed that you can’t make things to your standards. None of us can. New things always look like shit. Just own up to that reality and you will find more help from folks who will want to help make it better. Stop showing me CAGR and TAM and possibilities as a way of hiding that you haven’t built a product yet. It’s ok. You don’t need to have built something great yet.

Admit it. Show me some wireframes and a roadmap. I’ll take that way more seriously. In fact, I’ll probably overweight you showing me exactly what you do have and how you plan to use funds to improve it. That’s how much startup people value just building the damn thing.

Categories
Startups

Day 182 and Operating Capital

Popular culture portrays Silicon Valley and the startup space as one where capital is king. But it’s not the kind of capital you might be envisioning. Money (literal capital) is less of a driver of success than your social capital. And a specific type of social capital is overlooked.

The people with the most social capital aren’t necessarily founders or venture capitalists. It’s the career startup operator that has a good reputation that matters. They have a type of social capital I call operating capital.

There is a reason the team slide matters in a pitch. Who you know and how much they like, respect and trust you has a lot more to do with what deals get done. Part of this is related to luck and timing. The most talented people aren’t always the ones that have big hits. In fact, we correlate failure more strongly to overall credibility.

This makes spotting who has the most status in startups tricky. In industries like finance, money keeps the score. In consumer packaged goods, it’s what brand team you were on. In startups, the score is tricky to quantify value. We’ve developed an elaborate system of social capital signaling that determines who is considered valuable. But within that social capital status in-group you will find that the executive team layer has some of the most pull as founders and board members build working trust with them over years.

Because we value operators as high social status individuals we build our social status signifiers around your proven capacity to problem solve. How you solve problems can make or break a startup.

And we need all kinds of thinking. We need system thinking, (ops), a knack for keeping talent motivated HR), an ability to drive excitement and warp reality (marketing and PR) and obviously you have to be able to make shit (product and engineering). The people with these capabilities are the ones that accrue the most operating capital. Find those high status people and you will never be far from a startup that may have a shot at the big time.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 180 and Thesis

As I see more pitches and work with more entrepreneurs I am finding it helpful to have my thoughts codified on paper. That way if you are interested in working with me you have a chance to vet me. Knowing what I want to see in a deal and what just isn’t a fit saves entrepreneurs time. So I’m going to doodle a bit on what I do and don’t like.

Chaotic.Capital has 4 key investment areas. But they are really just different levels of working with an uncertain future: at the individual level, the organization level, the systems level and the planetary level.

  • Personal Flexibility is critical when it’s harder to make long term lifestyle decisions (housing, health, children) – how do we allow people to make those decisions without anchoring themselves to place or time horizons that limit optionality. Businesses like marketplaces, preparedness, personal safety, service & product exchanges, health tech, longevity, and alternative credentials.
  • Organizational Agility is a differentiator for businesses in rapidly changing landscapes, so we invest in software and tooling that provides leverage for small teams to have a bigger impact or bigger teams to act more discretely and independently. Businesses like software as a service, cloud infrastructure, collaboration & coordination software, DAOS (decentralized autonomous organizations), automation software, and memetic and organizational aids.
  • Systemic Arbitrage opportunities are even greater in chaos. Working through systems level chaos helps individual and organizations protect against cascade and systemic collapse risk, mitigate political chaos, regulatory uncertainty, memetic crowd and mob behaviors, or medical chaos, just to name a few. Businesses like intelligence, decentralized finance tooling and exchanges, cryptocurrencies, bots & analytics.
  • Climate or planetary risk is an existential risk that is already fucking with our world – we like companies mitigate the chaos of climate change while profiting on the risk. Businesses like mobility, insurance, green tech.

What I don’t like to hear are pitches for things that are tangentially related or a forced connection. Sometimes folks will try to get us excited about a problem they’ve already solved and are scaling but we are looking for longer time horizons. There are plenty of amazing startups that have great returns but aren’t a fit for us. We really do want the crazy weird stuff that is going to take a while.

We don’t need you to know where you are going. We want to see ten or twenty year out timelines. What would life look like without school? How about a world where we didn’t pay taxes based on our geographic location. How about a world where we automate how our attention is allocated. Or a world where our financial power isn’t rooted through centralized trusted powers. We want 1000x leverage on change.

I’ll write more later this week about the types of companies I don’t want to invest in. Not because I don’t like them but because they just don’t match what this fund is meant to do.

Categories
Emotional Work Startups

Day 166 and Safe Advice

Mistakes are expensive in the moment but priceless long term. This is why failed founders are so respected and sought after in the startup ecosystem. Their advice is the best money cannot buy. Money literally cannot buy the experience that comes from having utterly fucked yourself.

Sure maybe you lost a couple million bucks but you will never make the same mistake again. And because it hurts so god damn bad you will go out of your way to help others to avoid your fate. I’ve found that founders with failures are generous. They have seen the ways even the best laid plans can implode and want to help you from doing the same.

This is why it’s all the more frustrating for these operators watch a startup struggle to take advice. Speaking as a founder with failures, I know when someone else is about to make the mistakes I’ve made. I feel it in my bones. But it’s not always easy to help people help themselves.

Getting someone to an emotional place where they can hear that they too are about to fuck up their professional life takes love. Psychological safety is crucial to hearing someone else.

I have a theory that it feels safer to hear a hard piece of advice when it comes from someone you know is delivering it without ego. Someone who never seems to have struggled a day in their life tends to evoke our own feelings of inadequacy. Their advice could never work for us because we aren’t as smart, rich, connected or sexy as they are. But someone with scars? Sure maybe they get why this is so hard for us.

Categories
Startups

Day 159 and Friction

Everyone has their mental models and super powers that make them unique. While I’ve written about my more specific skills like getting attention, one of my other super powers is a bit further down the stack.

I think I have a naturally immunity to the friction of inertia. The slow stickiness of life doesn’t seem to impact me as much as the average person. Generating momentum is my natural state. I guess this means my X-Men doppelgänger is the Juggernaut.

Juggernaut from X-Men: Last Stand saying “I’m the Juggernaut Bitch”

Startups suffer particularly from inertia around them. The world pushes back actively against changes. Think of inertia like eddies in the stream of linear time. You must get unstuck or you will circle forever alongside the stream, never getting anywhere while watching as others get ferried down the currents. That’s why I recommend to startups that they simply do whatever is necessary to generate momentum. Get the fuck out of the eddies of inertia.

When you are pushing against existing reality to make something new, you already need to significantly reduce friction just to get a shot on goal. You need to change opinions, learn new skills, bring together a team, work well together.

And that doesn’t even mean you will make the goal, even if all preparation work that goes right. All of that momentum you generated simply to have an opening. Yeah even then you can still fail. The market, your underdeveloped skills, your competitors, sheer dumb luck all have a chance to block your goal. That means you need to be undeterred by failure. You need to overcome friction consistently.

Overcome the inertia and the friction to keep taking more shots is your best chance. Probability likes your odds from five shots better than one.