Search Results

< 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

< 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 chewing on May 2025 a running list of random things, trends and notes some of the ideas/insights i'm currently chewing on **work in progress 5/25 superior product wins in the late stage - distribution wins at all stages (esp. early) distribution is only becoming more and more paramount as software sunsets and AI becomes more commoditized (i.e. AI voice products, AI travel planners etc.) distribution will most likely win here as we move closer to AGI - what will the human experience/purpose be? 6/25 we are moving towards a fully agentic world, there is no stopping it. i don't think the next generation of $B companies will be agent service providers it will be the raw materials + manufacturing + build ecosystem that powers them. i believe there will be a regression towards "traditional" businesses with agents fixing issues that have previously inhibited these businesses from reaching scale or being too capital intensive. how do i get conviction in a company that may be completely replaced by AI? 7/25 original ideas (i.e. creativity) are more powerful than ever ideas used to be cheap not anymore can "cool" be manufactured? what does it look like to be an "essential worker" in the age of AI? 8/25 the 2nd order effects of more and more agentic AI tools hitting the market will be a 2nd wave of tools to help people manage, deploy, and scale the agentic tools from the first wave working on a hypothesis for wave #3 is it possible for a software to bring us back to being human? or is that just too ironic? 9/25 why does everything need protein in it? net new (no rev, no product) > company that has been alive 8+ months with no breakout momentum ^^ this phenomena is new for me only types of deals getting done are "net-new" or expensive + hype seed-ish co's last 2 investments were one of each 10/25 in may the bar was crazy high to be a vc-backed funded at the early stages, rn it's a founders market -- feels like these cycles are tightening and compounding. doesn't feel corrective at all just inflated, but i guess it always feels this way? building in areas where you have operated is paramount, empathy isn't enough. getting second hand insights from advisors, peers, investors, etc. is like getting hand me down clothes -- late to the trends and they never quite fit right are there any truly new thoughts or ideas anymore? i think there is an argument that this is only getting worse as ai responses are all derived from a prompt will all content, media, product, ideas, etc. just eventually become a cheap derivative of something prior? i believe "ai slop" is the early innings of this. 11/25 no thoughts just mexico travel :) 12/25 some 2026 predicitions/thoughts the Series A crunch from 2024 will have permanently reshaped Seed financing: extreme valuation dispersion, hyper-competitive rounds, as investors push to hit ownership targets earlier and earlier with the public markets performance increasingly propped up by a small concentration of AI-native companies, the AI bubble pop is coming openAI’s cash burn, coupled with spending commitments they may not be able to fund, mirrors the behavior of late-stage Enron and will result in a similar outcome nvidia will see a "crash" like Cisco in the 00’s (GPUs is to LLMs as Hardware is to the Internet). Cisco was the hardware powering the age of the internet, similar to Nvidia today. i'm not saying the company is going to blow up, okay, but I'm saying there will be a reckoning in the public markets of some kind (**working on something longer form here) 01/26 global oil sales are denominated in dollars, obviously the US is worried about that changing... the petrodollar keeps demand for USD high (some infiation of value here) Rn capital is currently being funneled into US financial and tech assets rather than physical production. As domestic growth becomes increasingly concentrated in AI, headline GDP is stabilized without rebuilding physical systems, leaving commodities and infrastructure underpriced until failure or geopolitics force a sudden repricing. (a.k.a recession) i’m not an economist, and candidly, I didn't do particualrly well in my 300-level econ courses (srry Dr. Thompson), but I’ve been thinking a lot about how AI is beginning to reshape geopolitics and the way nations prioritize assets and maintaining power ** last updated 01/02 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

< Back y2 June 2025 “self”, obsessive thinking, punching upwards, and not getting lost in the sauce Today marks two years at Redbud VC . Whenever a big “milestone” or marker rolls around, I catch myself feeling both nostalgic and reflective. It’s so easy to get lost in the day-to-day of the calendar; there’s not much time for quiet thinking on patterns, behaviors, and decisions. That said, I have been deliberating on what I want to share here, and I decided, in lieu of being tactical, I’m going to be a bit more spontaneous. My candid thoughts on a few themes across my 24-month tenure as an investor below. ___ “Self” I think Emily Herrera, former VC @ Slow & Night, said it best : “You made it - which means you’re starting to think long-term about What you like Who you like Who you are” This is the perfect summation of what it means to have worked in VC for two years. It is frankly exactly where I stand today. I spend a significant portion of my time thinking about those three things, and oftentimes, it feels like they’re always changing. As you start to build a circle of competence in an area, you inevitably become increasingly jaded about the value or outcome of a particular industry or trend. Candidly, it’s weird to be expected to be a pseudo “expert” on 10 million technologies at once. Like I’m supposed to know about “application layer AI, trends in food for consumers, emerging SaaS categories, defense contracts, etc.” I think that's why Emily’s three categories are so important – they allow you to narrow your aperture for opportunities. It takes a bit of the industry-imposed pressure off. While I’m still working on answering the above, one thing I have figured out is how to ask the easy questions. I think that good founders can smell BS a mile away, they know if the VC they are talking to gets their business or not. I want founders to know right off the bat if I understand. I often ask “easy questions” (i.e., explicitly asking “how does this work?”) and repeat information/process as I understand it for founders to correct my understanding of their companies. The questioning, coupled with the regurgitation of information, helps me not only understand the company and founder sitting right in front of me, but I believe it will help me answer Emily’s questions above. ** (Will check back to see if this is really how it goes down next year) Obsessive thinking In my opinion, the best and worst thing about being an investor is that you are always thinking. I feel always on, in a way. I like to spend my weekends taking long walks on the lakefront in Chicago. As I was walking early last week, I saw a sad little Lime scooter that had been tossed into the lake. I counted 3 Lyft bikes and 2 Lime scooters during my walk. All I could think about was how the company deals with damaged or unusable bikes/scooters: “It’s not super scalable to try to send a technician out to see what's wrong with them.” “This has to be written off.” “What percentage of inventory is written off like this?” “I wonder if anyone is building a better fleet management system for these bikes?” “Is that market even big enough, though?” Yep, always on. The great part about this is that venture rewards unfiltered curiosity. The not-so-great part is when you’re Googling what startup makes the QR code checkout system on your restaurant table, and your friends are discussing weekend plans without you. Punching upwards I love being overlooked. It’s a quintessential part of my intrinsic motivation. I’ve spent my entire life being overlooked and proving out. It would be radically uncomfortable (in a bad way) for me to be in 1st place from the start. I prefer to work to win. For two reasons: There’s no pressure when you are the underdog. You’re not expected to be great. The wonderful part is that you get to work hard, hustle, and ultimately, if you're competitive, you win. No one gave it to you, and it wasn’t expected. Winning when standing at a “disadvantage” sets a precedent that you have the grit and determination necessary to win in any environment. When you’re junior on a team or at a small firm, you need to produce. It’s all hands on deck to do a bit of everything. Where you spend your time is critical. I realized this as I spent a better part of Year 1 getting bogged down in non-high-value tasks and the day-to-day. I’ve found the best ways to produce for your firm and your portfolio companies are: Sourcing a new company for the firm to invest in Making customer, investor, or talent intros for your portfolio companies Diversifying your firm's network of investors, founders, and LPs spoiler: all this takes is hustle and a bit of shamelessness At Redbud, sourcing a customer for a portfolio company is an equal win to sourcing a company for the firm to invest in. It’s easy to sell why a founder should take your money when you have examples of real value you’ve been able to add (i.e. customers). Lost in the sauce There’s a lot of noise in venture and startups. People are constantly sharing what they’re doing, how they’re working, and what they’re working on. (Ironically, as I do here) There’s always pressure to be doing something, which, when everyone is always talking, creates noise. If you’re not careful, you can get lost in the sauce . As I see it, the sauce is the lethal combination of natural noise, a myriad of weekly events, your day-to-day calendar, firm expectations, pressure of never missing an opportunity, the list goes on…see how easy it is to get lost. It’s essential to limit the amount of sauce you are in at any given time. I do this in 3 ways: Staying focused – remembering that my job is essentially the three bullets on producing above Being honest – combating the constant culture of flexing with kindness, honesty, and vulnerability, where I can Having a community – a handful of investors that I share my failures and successes with, and text multiple times a week ___ It’s been a wonderful 2 years at Redbud. To the companies in our portfolio that I’ve had the chance to be an early believer in or finder of – thank you for your trust, connection, and conviction that our small/early check would make a meaningful difference on your cap table. To all the founders I’ve spoken with across time zones, stages, and industries this year, thank you for your vulnerability, openness, and courage in building something new. To Brett and Willy, thank you for taking a chance on me. 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 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