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

writings February 2026 maniacal urgency in other words, “super speedy quick” read here January 2026 2026 themes ME 2.0, essentially working?, manufacturing cool, IRL FR, and power density read here December 2025 best of 2025 the readings & writings read here October 2025 2nd-hand insights passed along learnings are like hand-me-down clothes read here August 2025 chobani on my jeans becoming my cultural diet and what it means for founders read here June 2025 y2 “self”, obsessive thinking, punching upwards, and not getting lost in the sauce read here May 2025 chewing on a running list of random things, trends and notes read here April 2025 pre-traction thoughts on legitimate ways to display traction early read here January 2025 on curiosity the underrated skill of not worrying about sounding dumb and just being curious read here November 2024 the prepared mind thoughts on generalist v.s. specialist investing read here November 2024 rigorous thinking "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. read here September 2024 on identity capital more than ever, young people are asking themselves who am I? you already know what you’ve experienced; start defining it. read here July 2024 first calls how I run every first call with a founder. read here April 2024 what I wish I knew my first month in venture the mistakes I made and advice from other young investors. read here March 2024 my tech stack the tools I use every day and the ways I use them. read here January 2024 betting on unseen forces the formative experiences of founders and how they're key factors in forming an outlier. read here January 2024 rejection i’ve spent a fair amount of my life as a young person facing rejection. read here

< Back maniacal urgency February 2026 in other words, “super speedy quick” It’s not my natural rhythm to move fast. I’ve always been more methodical, concentrated on outcomes and behaviors rather than the ‘move fast and break things’ ethos of tech. One of the things I’ve come to appreciate about venture is how it forces urgency. Everything is fast, and those who move quickly win. For example, founders often ask at the end of a call what the timeline looks like for a decision. It depends on a range of factors, but for us usually averages around three weeks. The incentive is compression in response. Faster responses mean better odds, especially when we’re competing for allocation in a round that’s moving fast. Speed, in a way, denotes seriousness. This holds true for many things. A quick text back from a friend, response time on an email, and the time it takes for a server to greet your table after sitting down. The necessity of the maniacal urgency has burned out any laziness in me. It’s made me brutally honest about what’s realistic to accomplish within a given timeframe and how to maintain quality along the way. Spend more time thinking, writing, and talking to founders; waste less time elsewhere. Previous Next

< Back 2026 themes January 2026 ME 2.0, essentially working?, manufacturing cool, IRL FR, and power density In May, I found myself wanting a place to stick my thoughts. I wasn’t particularly interested in the public forums of Twitter/X or LinkedIn, and while I do a lot of long-form writing, not every idea is ready for that format. I decided to create “chewing on,” a running blog you can read here , which I update periodically with reflections, observations, and opinions. (It is much, much less polished than the below.) Throughout this year, I pulled ideas from chewing on, along with a few others, and shaped them into the themes below. These are the areas where I’ll be spending time in 2026: ME 2.0 Where once our memories lived in scattered notes, photo rolls, and half-recalled ChatGPT threads, personal intelligence systems now promise something more ambitious: continuity. Not just storage, but understanding. Context layered over time, what I’ve read, chosen, forgotten, or avoided, forming a living map of preference and experience. As models move from reactive assistants to ambient companions, the burden of articulation begins to fall away. No more precise prompting. No more explaining what I need, again and again. Instead, systems already know, anticipating intent through accumulated history, emotional signals, and behavioral patterns. A memory becomes less archival and more interpretive. But this raises a deeper question about the authorship of the self. If an external system remembers more faithfully than I do, tracking motivations, inconsistencies, and growth, where does “my” memory end and delegated cognition begin? Does ME 2.0 sharpen identity by reflecting it to us, or subtly rewrite it by deciding what is worth remembering at all? synthesizing the decentralized ( klienklienklien ) essentially working? As AI absorbs more task-level knowledge work, productivity increasingly favors the curious over the credentialed. In this new frame, essential work looks less like execution and more like orchestration. The most valuable operators will sit above swarms of agentic workflows, designing, delegating, and supervising chains of autonomous systems spanning research, operations, and decision-making. Work becomes the management of intent, not the completion of tasks. As agentic tools continue to proliferate across verticals, a second-order layer inevitably emerges: systems to coordinate the systems . Platforms that aggregate, govern, and scale agents–deciding which models act, when they act, and how their outputs compound. Control shifts from individual tools to operating layers. But what becomes of the balance of labor & leverage? When “doing the work” means directing intelligence rather than supplying it, who remains essential, and by what measure? Does productivity accrue to those who command the agents, or to those who design the rules by which they operate? manufacturing cool Can cool be manufactured, or only discovered? For decades, products earned cultural relevance through proximity: who used them, where they appeared, and how slowly they spread. Today, distribution itself has become a creative act. Narrative, placement, and algorithmic amplification now shape what enters the zeitgeist just as much as the product does. As audiences fragment and attention becomes programmable, “cool” is becoming manufacturable. Startups no longer rely on organic adoption alone; they can refine distribution with the same rigor once reserved for product design: aesthetic coherence, influencer adjacency, and cultural timing are levers. This reframes GTM as a form of cultural production (i.e., consumers' cultural diets ). Rather than building for users and hoping for resonance, companies can script relevance, testing, and iterating on taste at scale . Cool becomes less about authenticity in the abstract and more about believability within a specific cultural moment. copy + paste ( charli's substack ) IRL FR There’s a renewed seriousness to the connections, communities, and conversations happening in real life. After years of over-indexing in digital interactions, the marginal utility of online communities is flattening. What’s emerging is demand for IRL FR (in real life, for real). The long tail of Covid-era isolation still lingers, and we know how to connect digitally, but we’re less practiced at reentering community. People want to show up, but there’s a lack of infrastructure to make it easy. This creates space for platforms that don’t compete with IRL interaction, but enable it, tools that aggregate intent, reduce social friction, and make IRL legible and repeatable. The next layer of platforms will scaffold IRL connections. They may sit at the coordination layer owning discovery, scheduling, and identity across offline experiences or at the brand layer, where IRL presence compounds loyalty and LTV. power density As generative AI scales, intelligence is no longer abstract; it is physical. Models, like humans, demand electricity, water, cooling, and land. What once felt like an infinite expansion of software is increasingly constrained by grids, substations, and energy contracts. This has shifted the advantage away from algorithms alone and toward infrastructure fluency. The race to build larger models quietly becomes a race to secure power, driving new data center clusters, stressing local grids, and reshaping how and where intelligence is produced. In response, the stack had begun to adapt. Purpose-built accelerators promise more intelligence per watt. Workloads have been moved across time zones to follow renewable supply. Other projects, like behind-the-meter capacity, private microgrids, and eventually small-scale nuclear, could reshape what “cloud” even means. But how do these tradeoffs resolve? Do we optimize for efficiency, locality, or control? Does access to energy become the true limiter of who gets to build, deploy, and scale the next generation of AI? hungry hungry hippos circa 2025 ( kai williams ) ___ If you are a) building in any of the areas or b) just want to talk about any of these themes, drop me a line at maria[at]redbud[dot]vc Previous Next

< Back my tech stack March 2024 the tools I use every day and the ways I use them. About a year ago, when I began transitioning into full-time employment and venture, I realized I had a steep learning curve ahead of me with adopting new tech workflows. I quickly discovered that Google Docs and Gmail weren’t going to cut it, nor did I really know where to start when it came to tech. :( Working at a small firm means I've had the opportunity to build my own “tech stack.” Over the past few months, I took some of the firm-wide software and added a few of my own tools to build a tech stack that houses all of my work and, frankly, my life. :) These tools allow me to clearly communicate, align priorities, execute, and stay organized. Below is the current lineup/roster of tools that I use every single day and my current favorite use cases and features. Hopefully, you find something that you’ll enjoy. Notion https://www.notion.so/product • $0-$15 per user per month Notion is the most used (and favorite) tool in my tech stack. It is where the big things/initiatives/projects live at work, and it serves as the hub of my personal life as well. Below are 2 of my favorite ways I use Notion. Work: Weekly Standup Agendas Every week, I have a standup with one of the GPs at the fund I work at. It is my responsibility to run through what happened the previous week and share current priorities. Below is a snapshot of the notion view Work: Personal CRM Part of being a VC is meeting a lot of other VCs, and it’s always hard to keep track of who invests in what. I love to meet new people, and my favorite investors always Are hyper-focused on sending deals that meet my firm's thesis Remember something about me/that I enjoy :) I’m getting better at this (still a work in progress), but tracking all the little details in Notion has helped me be more intentional about meetings and deal sharing. Superhuman https://superhuman.com/ • $30 per user per month If you’re not using Superhuman, you should be. Prior to Superhuman, I felt like emails were always getting “lost in the sauce,” and I was always frantically missing something. Since using Superhuman, I haven’t missed an email; it’s cut down my time in my inbox by 75%, and I am able to triage my inbox in the most efficient manner. My favorite features of Superhuman are split inboxes , keyboard shortcuts , snippets , and read statuses . Notion Calendar (frm. Cron) https://www.notion.so/product/calendar • $0 with Notion subscription Calendar management is still a work in progress for me, but Notion Calendar has been an absolute lifesaver. I used to be a die-hard calendly user but had a hard time blocking calls. I found I was wasting a TON of time in random 30 breaks between calls. I use Notion Calendar to send personalized meeting times in time blocks where I am open/want to take calls. It has helped me stack my calls better, avoid calendly reverse engineering/rebooking, and make the most of my daytime. Flow Club https://www.flow.club/ • 7-day free trial, then $33.33/month billed annually or $40/month Flow Club is expensive, but the results/productivity are worth every penny. Flow Club facilitates virtual co-working sessions where you can drop in and get things done! I usually do 1–2 flows per day so that I have dedicated time to work on the tasks that have no end or stuff I've been actively avoiding. It’s great to have small and welcoming groups of accountability partners. 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 best of 2025 December 2025 the readings & writings Growing up, the monthly arrival of the print version of Time Magazine was always something I looked forward to. Checking the mail and seeing that iconic red border, Time was a consistent part of my young adult reading. It sparked my love for print media, and I believe it is what made me obsessed with the concept of a "best list." I especially looked forward to the “special editions,” like Time 's Person of the Year (now a piece of American iconography), Invention of the Year, and Photo of the Year. I’ll share more reflections on 2025 soon, but I wanted to start with the readings (essays and books) that stood out most. This list captures my personal bests from throughout the year. What I love about revisiting the work that carried the most weight, sparked the most joy, or taught me something lasting is how it reinforces the pursuit of knowledge as a very human act. It keeps my curiosity in motion and compounds in ways that are hard to predict, but easy to feel. So without further ado...the bests readings and writings throughout the year. Essays American Vulcan by Jeremy Stern A portrait of one of the most quietly polarizing figures in tech & defense, Palmer Lucky. I think it’s easy to write off those who operate best on the fringes of a spectrum, and Palmer seems to only operate on the fringes. Stern details Palmer's life in distinct sections, from a homeschooled tinkerer to the founder of Oculus to the founder of Anduril, the largest manufacturer of autonomous systems for security & defense. It’s a rare snapshot into the fringes on which Palmer operates: work, life, family, media, and politics. “I’m maybe not the crusader for truth that people imagine. I am a crusader for vengeance. And if my vengeance can best be served by covering up the crimes of those who have wronged me, then I’ll probably do that. ” “Remember that I’m not a journalist,” he continued. “I don’t have to be objective. I don’t have to be neutral. I can be a propagandist. ” Curious Times by Aravind Srinivas Ages are defined by work, but what happens in the AI age, where knowledge work is slowly being eradicated? Srinivas poses this question that many of us are asking in different ways and answers it quite optimistically: learning will replace knowledge as our dominant economic output. The ability to pose the best questions, learn, and move quickly will be the human elements that define the AI age. Imo, the future belongs to the curious. :) “ Each time the dominant form of work has changed, prosperity has followed those who re-skilled and adapted. Success went to societies that prioritized immediate learning for affected workers and systems of education for their upcoming generations.” Successful People by Sam Altman A small post from Altman’s blog written over 13 years ago. I believe it’s a small window into Altman’s mindset as he builds OpenAI. “…the most successful founders do not set out to create companies. They are on a mission to create something closer to a religion.” The Art of Understanding What's Going On by Tina He Tina He from Pace Capital is a cut above the rest, and her blog, Fake Pixels, is one of my favorites in the industry. We like to think we understand incentives, truths, and behavior, yet we’re often chasing narratives (especially in AI companies) rather than mechanics. A really refreshing read and clear breakdown of how to actually understand a company by examining its underlying incentives, not the story it wants to tell. “Spotting the gap between surface narratives and hidden incentives helps clarify how these cycles play out and reveals the second- and third-order effects that are often overlooked when abstracting "AI" as a universal fix.” Books The Young VC’s Handbook compiled by Sakib Jamil If you’re a jr. investor and we’ve chatted in the last year, odds are I’ve shown you my battered/well-loved copy of the Young VC’s Handbook. It's the only book that gives you actual tactical advice on how to do your job as an investor, and I reference it incredibly often. Thinking in Bets by Anne Duke A rec from Robbie at mtf . I was initially worried I was about to get knee-deep in some game theory, but what I got was an easy-to-digest guide to choices, biases, echo chambers, continuums, etc. I read this right after learning I’d passed on a deal that later had a16z lead a subsequent round, and I wish I’d read it sooner. I don’t know if that would have changed the outcome, but I do know my decision-making frameworks are a bit stronger now, thanks to Anne. 1491 by Charles C. Mann A pre-Columbian history of the Americas that I breezed through in a week. Mann challenges long-held assumptions, biases, and “facts” about the Americas, drawing on modern anthropological discoveries to dismantle much of the conventional narrative. The book is broken up into three parts: population, culture, and environment. Because this period is often glossed over (or entirely skipped) in K–12 American history curriculum, most of it was new to me and sent me down some good rabbit holes. The Creative Act: A Way of Being by Rick Rubin I think a Creative Act has been at the top of countless best-seller lists and everyone’s recommendations since its release in 2023. I’m always drawn to books written by people at the very top of their craft, and Rick Rubin unquestionably qualifies. The book is a quiet, grounding reminder that creativity isn’t a credential or a talent, it’s a way of paying attention to what's around you. You don’t need to be a creative to be creative. 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 chobani on my jeans August 2025 becoming my cultural diet and what it means for founders Nothing screams chronically online more than walking into a grocery store, rubbing Chobani yogurt all over a stiff pair of jeans, filming it, and then posting it on TikTok. why? All because the lyrics in the song “Jeans by 2hollis” sound like he sings “put chobani on my jeans” instead of “put your body on my jeans” – viscerally different situations. Jeans became the song that framed my July photo dump on Instagram as a nod to the fact that I have seen this trend, find it funny, and ultimately, it’s become a part of who I am (in, albeit, some weird way). did this increase sales of chobani or annoyance of grocery store employees? I’ve been thinking about this a lot – how the content we consume every day becomes who we are. Humor, conversational references, restaurant choices, politics, etc. are all profoundly influenced by the content we consume and how long we let it marinate in our brains and bodies. As the internet and its culture have intertwined with our lives, it has changed how I think, act, and operate, as I believe to be true for most consumers. I think Lisa Kholostenko says it best, “consumption isn’t just passive enjoyment—it’s dynamic, it answers back.” It introduces the concept of a “Cultural Diet” that the content you consume becomes a part of you. It can lend itself to an era of your life, a fleeting Instagram photo dump, a phrase you repeat to your friends, or it can transcend chapters, inform your politics, and trickle into the core of your personality. No bigger indicator that more people are becoming a steady reflection of their cultural diets than the dialogue around taste. “Taste” — who has it and who doesn’t — is all VCs, founders, tech people, and performative matcha labubu keychain hipsters want to talk about. As defined by Emma Lou Cogan, Taste is “the byproduct of our worldview, the measure of our exposure to varied newness, & the invisible thread that ties together our emotional, psychological, and cultural instincts.” the tastemaker c.2025 I believe that taste is what evolves from your cultural diet. People focus on manufacturing taste via the content they consume. Except there is no filter for consumption. There is no way to limit the content you read, watch, and react to every day. You can curate your feeds to what you perceive to be high quality, unsubscribe from newsletters, mute accounts, and follow only those you know, but the flood never really stops. Algorithms surface “related” posts, friends forward viral clips, group chats ping with whatever celebrity look-alike contest is happening at your local park this week, and billboards replay the same slogans as you commute. In an ecosystem where the internet and reality are divulging more and more, content behaves like background radiation: it seeps through every filter, ensuring that the endless stream of headlines, hot-takes, and ads still becomes part of your cultural diet whether you consciously invite it to be or not. eating good Vice versa, if you’re always feeding yourself content that feels good, is comfortable, and is familiar, it’s like only eating Big Macs; you feel wonderful when eating it, but slow, sluggish, and left behind in the tides of conversation when those who have tried salads, soups, and sandwiches come around and reference another world of taste. You are what you eat. This leaves a question for founders building their companies today: how do you become a part of people’s cultural diets? It’s a more fun way of saying distribution matters. How you distribute (feed) your product into your consumer's cultural diet (the content they consume) determines how quickly you can move. Distribution is becoming increasingly paramount as certain product features, data, and previously “moats” are becoming commoditized. The company that most rapidly incorporates itself into its customers’ cultural diet, so convincingly that consumers experience the product as an extension of their own identity, unlocks a flywheel in which every operational building block (distribution, retention, pricing power, and brand equity) compounds at an accelerated rate. It happened with Lovable (0 to 2.3M users in 8 months) by making “vibe coding” part of the engineering zeitgeist. Rhode (0 to $1B acquisition by e.l.f in 3 years) by bringing a high-fashion lens to affordable beauty. Ramp (0 to $22.5B valuation in 6 years) by embracing the “underdog” narrative online and making something people hate (expense reporting) actually enjoyable. normalize slapping timothee on a billboard with a logo Each company’s story is now inescapable. Scroll a feed, open an email, cue up a podcast, each touchpoint repeats who they are, what they build, and why it matters. The product becomes a piece of their unique customers' unique diets. Ultimately, distribution is not only a question of reach; it is a matter of incorporation. When a product, message, or idea slips unnoticed into the daily cadence of alerts, shortcuts, and inside jokes, it migrates from the marketplace into the cognitive architecture of our brains and ultimately influences who we are. The push-notification that triggers a reflexive glance, the reference that needs no explanation in conversation, these are signals that a product has been metabolised, not just adopted. In that sense, market penetration is inseparable from identity formation: what saturates our attention steadily rewires our assumptions about efficiency, status, and even community. That realisation imposes a dual responsibility. For founders, the task is to design a product capable of that tenancy. For the rest of us, the question is curatorial: which inputs do we allow to occupy our limited cognitive real estate, and to what end? ___ Building to become apart of your consumers cultural diet? Drop me a line maria@redbud [dot] vc Previous Next