Search Results

< Back rigorous thinking November 2024 "what do you think?" there isn’t a day that goes by when one of the GPs at my firm doesn’t ask me this question. "What do you think?" There isn’t a day that goes by when one of the GPs at my firm doesn’t ask me this question, and honestly, I used to hate it. I’m often bad at articulating them clearly, not because I don't have opinions. It’s not that I don’t have ideas about a company or initiative we're working on. My opinions were usually a mix of gut feelings and bias, but I hadn’t dug into why I thought a certain way. I’d never stopped to ask myself, "What do I think?" Over time, I noticed a pattern in my responses to this question. I’d ramble about my general impressions of a company when asked what I thought. I’d sprinkle in details from founder conversations or some diligence I’d done, but mostly, I’d speak in broad strokes, unstructured thoughts that even I struggled to make sense of. Unsurprisingly, this approach was not only unconvincing but often left me more confused about my perspective (ironic, right?) Over the past few months, I’ve started diving into becoming a more rigorous thinker. I’m sure my approach will evolve, but I wanted to capture how I’m beginning to build a more robust framework for thinking through decisions. In startups and VC, it’s easy and often incentivized to ignore truth for speed in the short term. However, you can move faster and make better decisions by developing structured pathways for clear thinking. One of the best ways to become a rigorous thinker is using mental models. This concept isn’t new, and it’s been discussed by countless others for centuries, but I wanted to share how I’m applying two models, Circle of Competence and 2nd Order Thinking, to build more rigor in my thinking. Circle of Competence: A circle of competence is an area where you have knowledge or expertise. When you operate within your circle of competence, you have a competitive edge because you understand the history, trends, attitudes, and behaviors within that space. Over time, you can expand this circle, strengthening your understanding and intuition. Shane Parrish describes it well in The Great Mental Models : "When we are within a circle of competence, we know what we don't know. We can make decisions quickly and accurately, define problems precisely, and identify additional information we need. We have a proven track record and can adapt our language to different contexts, zooming in and out seamlessly on what is knowable." For a long time, I struggled with the concept of a circle of competence, often dismissing it by thinking I didn’t have enough experience to be competent in any area. And while I may not be Mark Andreessen (not close…yet), I’ve realized that I do have emerging circles of competence rooted in my own life experiences. Right now, these circles are shaped by the industries that influenced me growing up, the work of the adults around me, and my background as a student. Circles of competence are built gradually and adapt as environments and dynamics shift. To establish and maintain these circles, you need a desire to learn, a commitment to monitor and test your assumptions, and regular feedback from those outside your circle. As I work to build a circle of competence in venture capital, I'm consistently putting myself in situations where I can learn from those with much more experience in the industry. Understanding how they think, combined with my own experiences, time, and practice, is helping me improve at assessing companies—and, hopefully, becoming a better investor. It’s not about being written or being wrong. It’s about having exposure to multiple ways of thinking and understanding the context and nuance around them. 2nd Order Thinking: Second-order thinking is about pushing your mind beyond an action's immediate cause and effect. It’s the ability to consider the second and third layers of consequences resulting from a single decision. Take dinner, for example. I have two options if I'm hungry: make a balanced meal at home or grab Raising Cane’s down the street. The first cause and effect for each is straightforward: the home-cooked meal will not be satisfying taste-wise, while Raising Cane’s satisfies my cravings because I love tenders and Cane’s sauce more than anything else! Based on first-order thinking, Raising Cane’s is the obvious choice. But if I think in the second and third layers, things look different. Eating at home may not fulfill all my cravings, but I’ll nourish my body correctly, sleep better, and have fuel for tomorrow’s workout. If I choose Raising Cane’s, I’ll enjoy the meal immediately, but my tummy will inevitably hurt, I’ll have inadequate nutrients for my workout, and I'll feel sluggish all evening. First-order thinking often favors short-term decisions, while second-order thinking encourages us to consider the longer-term consequences of our actions. Second-order thinking can sometimes slow decision-making as people evaluate all possible adverse outcomes. I use it as a tool to make more informed choices without expecting to foresee every result. It’s about challenging myself to think more deeply about the effects of my decisions. Second-order thinking is a critical tool when evaluating companies as an investor, where there’s a constant stream of companies to assess. Thinking through the second and third outcomes of my choices helps me look beyond the immediate attraction of a company or its initial traction to consider how it aligns with our firm’s investment goals and thesis. Second-order thinking also guides my decision-making when choosing which companies to spend more time on or push forward in the pipeline. It keeps me mindful of my blind spots and helps me consider the potential downstream effects of my choices. Conclusion: Building a more rigorous approach to decision-making has changed how I handle the dreaded “What do you think?” question. Using tools like the mental models above, I’ve gone from rambling through gut reactions to articulating clearer, more thoughtful perspectives. I’m learning to dig into why I think a certain way and what effects my decisions have in the long term. While there’s still much more to learn, these mental models are helping me tackle decisions with greater confidence and thought. Previous Next

< Back first calls July 2024 how I run every first call with a founder. One of the largest misconceptions I notice from founders when speaking to them about their companies is the belief that talking to a junior VC can’t do anything for them OR that it’s the main point of decision in the deal flow process. Neither of these are wholly true. It’s critical for founders to understand that what a junior VC needs to move forward with a deal varies by firm, but going into that conversation knowing you have 30 minutes to make someone your biggest internal champion is incredibly important. The Importance of the First Call Every week, I take between 10 to 20 pitch calls. These conversations span from entrepreneurs who are just considering starting a company and don’t yet have a fully developed business idea to founders who are raising $3M in pre-seed rounds with lead investors secured. With such a diverse range of founders, it’s easy to get lost in a sea of companies and details. That’s why it’s crucial for founders to be memorable. Being memorable doesn’t mean having the most energy or constantly wearing a big smile. To me, it means being incredibly candid and honest about your company and its potential and being as well-prepared and disciplined as possible going into that first call. I understand that fundraising is a significant time commitment for founders, taking time away from building their company or talking to customers. Therefore, I make it my job to match that level of preparedness, coming into the conversation ready to share insights about the firm I work for and the value we can provide to them. Starting the Conversation After the small talk and niceties at the start of a pitch call, I always provide the founder with a clear structure for how the next 30 minutes will go. I’ll share a bit about our fund and the value we offer. Then, I’d like to hear about them and why they started their company. Afterward, we’ll transition into a Q&A session. By giving an overview of the call, I am setting expectations. Each VC leads calls differently, and I want the founder to know what to expect once we get on the call. Right away, they knew they will have time to ask me questions about the firm. It also clarifies that I prefer conducting the meeting in a Q&A format rather than a formal presentation. The first question I ask on every pitch call is, “Tell me a bit about your background and why you started your company.” This gives me a general overview and introduction to the founder and divulges insights that aren’t in a pitch deck. The best founders give a quick, high-level overview of their background, highlighting key moments that were crucial when they decided to leave a corporation to start a company. They talk in-depth about the pain points they personally experienced, maybe sprinkling in some customer discovery, but overall, they clearly articulate why they are building their company. This overview lasts no longer than 5 minutes. Building Conviction Quickly I’m constantly thinking about what I need to believe in order to gain conviction as quickly as possible, the areas where I need to do supplementary due diligence, and the priority list for what my partners may want to see. To cover as much ground as possible in the shortest amount of time, I run my first calls in a pretty disciplined fashion while still remaining casual. Here is the structure of my calls and some things I prefer to do when chatting with founders: 1. Have a Deck Before the Call I always try to have a pitch deck before the call to minimize the time spent asking questions already answered in the deck. Sometimes, I ask the same questions about key KPIs like sales cycle or pricing to confirm what’s in the deck or see if anything has changed. For early-stage founders, factors like sales cycle and pricing are often influenced by new learnings and change until key customer contracts are set in place. I want to ensure I have accurate numbers on these key details. 2. Keep It Conversational I try to keep the first pitch call in a conversational format as much as possible. I prefer to ask questions and have the founder answer them without running through a formal presentation. This helps build rapport, softens the power dynamic between a VC and a founder, and provides insight into how clearly the founder can articulate their vision and how deliberate they are in answering questions. 3. Dig Deeper with Follow-Up Questions I believe you get the best answers after the second or third question when digging into a topic. I let the founder’s answers to my previous questions guide the formation of my subsequent questions. This allows me to dive deeper into key risks and highlights of their business. It also helps get founders off script; many are on multiple pitch calls a day answering the same questions. I aim to cover as much ground as possible in that first call. Ending the call I end every call by thanking the founder for their time. If I didn’t have the pitch deck before the call, I make sure to request it, along with any supplementary materials I might need for early diligence. I also provide an overview of the timeline. I explain what the rest of our investment process looks like, the average timeline for each stage, and when they can expect to hear from me if we’re moving forward. Post-Call Follow-Up There are a couple of things I do after a first call. First, I ensure I have all my notes in order. I need to make sure that I have answers to the following categories: founder’s background, problem, solution, sales cycle, pricing, traction, and round terms. If I know I am missing something after that initial first call, I send an email within 24 hours. The hope is that after the first call, I’m excited about the founder, excited about the company they’re building, and curious to learn more. After a particularly excellent first call, I start to pull together a first-page diligence shee (more on that in a future post) to ensure that when I present the company to my partners for a second call, I am as prepared as possible and have the best understanding of the business they are building. Previous Next

< Back rejection January 2024 i’ve spent a fair amount of my life as a young person facing rejection. I’ve spent a fair amount of my life as a young person facing rejection. As a child getting cut from sports teams, as a teen not making it into elite colleges, and as a young adult facing brutal internship/job passes, I am no stranger to the painful ache that rejection causes. I have a deep understanding of some of the long-standing effects tough rejections can have, and it’s hard not to recall times when I showed up at my best and met with what I deemed to be the “worst.” The complex and burdensome emotions that rejection can illicit are something that I spur in founders every day. I spend a large portion of my time as an investor rejecting founders, and being so familiar with the feelings myself, it is a dichotomy I’m learning to be comfortable with. I sit across the table from founders each day who have put EVERYTHING into their businesses, and 99% I follow up with an email on my firm passing on investment. There are a few reasons in particular why I wanted to write about rejection as my first “soapbox.” #1 I want founders to know that no matter how quickly calls go — I can feel the emotion, time, energy, and capital that they have put into their business and that even though I say no often, I don’t say it lightly. #2 VCs themselves are a business, and that’s not talked about enough. We care about founders, and we deeply want them to succeed, but ultimately, our duty is to our investors called LP’s whom we seek to drive returns for (more on this in the future). No’s are said for a variety of reasons, and most of the time, No’s can be traced back to more arbitrary reasons and things that founders can’t control, such as portfolio construction, biases towards certain industries/verticals, conviction/market trends, other deal flow in the pipeline, etc. Each “No” is rooted in a complex and sometimes uncontrollable combination of events and circumstances, but that doesn’t make them hurt any less. I’ve thought a lot about how I can be more comfortable dishing out multiple rejections on a daily basis. I’ve found that transparency drives clear expectations, and intentionality helps reason with difficult emotions. I’ve learned to start each intro call by sharing a clear background on Redbud ; I leave time for founders to ask me any questions they may have about our process; if there is a perceived conflict of interest, I mention it immediately. My favorite question I’ve started asking is for founders to share thier favorite articles, white papers, or case studies with me. It has allowed me to do a quick dive into their industry, gather my thoughts, and communicate them to my GP clearly. Information drives reasoning. In the midst of my most poignant rejections, I’ve always asked myself, “why?”. Now, I deliver the clearest and most concise ”why” I can to founders in each rejection post intro or second call. Ultimately, rejection is an inherent part of raising capital, and while it may never be easy, my goal is to handle it with respect and empathy. I’m striving to create a culture where the pain of rejection isn’t lessened, but the clarity behind it is increased. I’m starting to view rejection as an opportunity for evolution — both for myself and the entrepreneurs I interact with. It’s a chance to mutually refine our approaches, learn from setbacks, and foster resilience. Something that not many other events/emotions have the opportunity to illicit. Previous Next

< Back what I wish I knew my first month in venture April 2024 the mistakes I made and advice from other young investors. I grew up incredibly isolated from the tech world. My parents worked as teachers, there were no corporate jobs in my community, and no one around me spoke the language of “business.” In starting my career in Venture, I've had to get up to speed on corporate and venture courtesies simultaneously. I’ve found that working in VC isn’t a learning curve; it’s a learning rollercoaster. When you think you’ve grasped a concept or nailed a best practice, there’s another one waiting for you around the bend. It’s a cycle of learning that can leave you feeling like you’re stuck on a ride with no one telling you where to exit. So don’t worry, I’ve punched my ticket on the rollercoaster many times when I didn’t have to (and I know there’ll be more). There are way too many things that I wish I had known in month one, but below are the key learnings I’ve had, along with insights from other young VCs who’ve navigated similar challenges during their inaugural month in the venture. 1. Taste takes time It’s incredibly difficult to know what you think of a company when you have no baseline for comparison. Knowledge of large markets, comps, and knowing what questions to ask can all be accelerated by talking to as many founders as possible. Knowing what you like to see in a startup and what your partners like to see takes time and practice. On another note, having conviction is not an overnight phenomenon, and being able to communicate it to a GP isn’t either. Learning time can be shortened through repetition. “Developing your own taste and pattern recognition takes time. Before narrowing in too much on what you like, first focus on learning what kinds of companies and business models your partner/firm likes”— Georgina McMillian , Investor at Headline . 2. Always double opt-in When introducing two people who don’t know each other, ask each of them to opt-in to the introduction before making it. I was completely unaware of this common courtesy when I started in VC (sorry to all those who got intros launched into thier inboxes from me) . Emails without opt-ins don’t set up either party for success, they increase the likelihood of the connection never happening, and they make people aware that they may not want to spend the time on intros that come your way. Here’s my favorite breakdown of how to facilitate a strong intro email from Chris Fralic, Partner at First Round Capital. 1. VC fundamentally is about people and the art of relationship building, so strong interpersonal skills are crucial 2. FOMO is a REAL thing 3. Conviction is key- Michelle Rogoff , Investor at Hyde Park Angels 3. Listen more. Talk less. There’s a lot of ground to cover in an intro call with a founder. Asking concise questions to get the answer you need and listening is critical. Sometimes, what a founder doesn’t say is just as important as what they do say. Noticing the missing pieces of information helps formulate the next question. Listening to the full scope of an answer helps you decide where deeper into the aspects that are missing or transition to the next topic. Previous Next

< Back 2nd-hand insights October 2025 passed along learnings are like hand-me-down clothes One of the first lessons in venture “pattern matching” is to back founders with domain expertise. These are people who have lived, breathed, and worked in the problem space they are building in. A former HR leader at Facebook building a payroll tool, for example, starts with a sharper reference point than if I started cooking up the next Rippling competitor. That said, great companies are often built by outsiders. With AI lowering the cost of building, the goalposts have moved. I’d argue there’s little lasting “moat” in tech today (more on that another time). What matters is speed and distribution, and this domain knowledge functions like seeing the puzzle before everyone else. You move faster from A to B because you already know which pieces click. spencer bledsoe from survivor , who memorized most likely puzzles prior to his season. he solved this one in 15 seconds. When founders build in an unfamiliar space, they often try to close the gap with “second-hand insights”: advice and patterns borrowed from people who’ve been in the industry. Helpful, yes, but second-hand insights are like hand-me-down clothes: a step behind the trends and a bit ill-fitted. Seond-hand insights carry the original owner’s context and what worked under one set of constraints, incentives, and market timing may not "size" to the present. Relying solely on second-hand insights keeps founders working at a constant disadvantage. You’re waiting to learn the hard way or chasing someone else’s lessons. There’s already enough learning the hard way in startups. The thoughts of others (advisors, investors, etc.) can’t substitute for the founder’s own lived context; without it, those insights don’t compound. he was an advisor with more equity than the CTO for "insights" This is why, as VCs, we hesitate to back teams without a unique angle or background, not because those without the domain experience can’t win, but because at the pre-seed stage, proprietary insight is usually what creates founder conviction. And founder conviction is what creates our conviction that the company could derive a billion-dollar outcome. 1st Hand Insights: “At X, I saw/learned X, that influenced X, which I am now building with X” Second-order effects: Clear articulation around early vision & product “I want to move from X GTM to X GTM just like I did at my previous company/employer.” Second-order effects: Speed to market, robust pipeline of prospects or pilot customers “What most don’t understand is X, because I know this, I am able to do X thing 10x better than X.” Second-order effects: Speed of iteration, revenue ramping post launch 2nd Hand Insights: “Our advisor shared that X was their experience, and so we are trying/doing/experimenting with X.” Second-order effects: Slow speed to launch, multiple versions of product (V1,V2,V3) “The sales cycle is long in X, so we are doing X, because it is how X person did it at X.” Second-order effects: Quick no’s from prospects, prolonged sales or implementation cycles, customer feedback that the problem isn’t “urgent” enough to solve for at this time. “X industry has been historically slow to adopt X, because X” ( when broad, non-specific** ) Second-order effects: Lose to the incumbent or new solutions, slow growth, no customer network effects All of the above is not new – but the gap is widening. I’m watching it in real time. The world is stochastic, and it's better to have your own framework to build on than wait for someone to share theirs. Previous Next

< Back pre-traction April 2025 thoughts on legitimate ways to display traction early Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what traction really means at the pre-seed stage, particularly before a fully built product, paying customers, or hints of revenue. This stage is incredibly nebulous. As a founder, how do you de-risk your idea in a way that creates conviction, not just for yourself, but in the eyes of investors? It’s a tricky balance. Founders want to raise capital off the strength of their background, a 10-slide deck, and maybe an MVP. But the reality is, real traction is leverage. If you have people paying for what you’re building, even in small amounts, the path to closing a round gets dramatically easier. Still, I think there are legitimate and strategic ways to display traction that don’t rely on traditional revenue. These “pre-traction” signals can tell a compelling story about market demand and founder execution, even before a wire hits the bank. At Redbud, we back a handful of pre-seed companies each year. Almost all of them have something built (i.e., some version of an early product) and often, a few design partners or test users. But 90% of the time, there’s no meaningful revenue. Maybe a couple hundred dollars in MRR. And yet, when a company is compelling at this stage, it can come down to a strong pre-traction narrative. To me, pre-traction means early, often scrappy signals that people are willing to pay for what you’re building or at least are highly interested. If you’re launching a consumer product, maybe it’s a waitlist of 10,000 people. If you’re building a B2B SaaS tool, maybe it’s a warm pipeline of three or four design partners who’ve agreed to test and eventually buy the product. When I evaluate companies like this, I’m constantly asking: how long will it take before these early users convert into paying customers? If a founder has thought through that timeline and is willing to hold themselves accountable to it, that’s a massive indicator of clarity and conviction. It gives investors something tangible to pull on, but more importantly, it shows the founder is operating with honest constraints and urgency. Sometimes, pre-traction is rooted in lived experience or a unique domain insight. A founder might say, “I know product managers will buy this tomorrow, because at my last company, we spent $25K a year trying to solve this exact problem.” That’s not a paying customer, but it is a signal. It reflects a deep understanding of the pain and a credible path to solving it. There’s nothing more compelling than a founder who says, “I know this is real. I know people want it.” And then backs that up with a waitlist, a pipeline, or even a series of customer conversations proving demand is bubbling beneath the surface. The best founders don’t just hope people will buy; they have early evidence that someone is already leaning in somewhere. Ultimately, pre-traction is about accelerating the speed of iteration. If a founder understands how they’ll acquire users, when they’ll start paying, and where the early friction lies, they can build faster, learn faster, and adjust quickly when things don’t go as planned. The advice to “build and ship quickly” is universal for a reason. But if you’re raising capital while doing that, think deeply about how you communicate the friction you’re feeling, the conversations you’re having, and the early signs that what you’re building matters. Previous Next

all of my favorite readings: blogs, books, and blurbs ​ readings some of my favorite blogs, books, and blurbs thinking fast start right before you get eaten by the bear how things get done the great mental models: volume one rigorous thinking: no lazy thinking cultural curiosity same wavelength ‘ugh, i’m so busy’: a status symbol for our time the strength of being misunderstood successful people "insecure vibes" are a self-fulfilling prophecy corporate ozempic the socially-conscious mean girl the META trending trends: 2024 you don't need to document everything the virtue of vice how we built the internet american vulcan discipline + process 15 principles for managing up finding the courage to be disliked how to become insanely well-connected vc what they don’t tell you about making it in vc a few things I’ve learned about brand building in venture capital “the grass is always greener”…aka the circle of envy the puritans of venture capital always run an auction