I read about a new ranking system for VC firms created by two college students. Founder’s Choice VC Leaderboard crowdsources rankings of VC firms. The platform allows founders to rank the VC firms that invested in their start-up. It verifies the founders’ identities via LinkedIn and fact-checks the investments in the company via CrunchBase. The process isn’t perfect, but it does provide insight from a founder’s perspective.

The top-ranked firm is Union Square Ventures in New York. I’ve read the founding partner’s blog for years, and I’m not surprised his firm is ranked highest. The top ten included Atlanta-based TTV Capital, which was a great win for the city. Most surprisingly, the most notable firms weren’t in the top ten. Sequoia is often regarded as one of the best firms with the most consistent track record, but it ranked number eleven. Again, this ranking approach isn’t without flaws, but it’s interesting, nonetheless.

Venture capital firms serve two main stakeholders: the limited partners who trust them with capital to invest and the founders to whom they deploy the capital. I’m glad there’s another platform on which founders can share their perspectives about the VC firms they’ve worked with.

A long-time friend asked why I’m so intrigued by early-stage founders and investing. He’s surprised that I don’t like later-stage investing more because there are more measurable data points. I enjoy helping founders at any stage, but I do like the early stage the most. I define “early stage” as pre–product/market fit, so it includes the pre-seed or even seed stage. Here are a few reasons I like this stage:

• Empathy – I started my own company, so I empathize with the zero-to-one segment of the journey. I don’t think you can fully understand it unless you’ve lived it.
• Turnover – The more I’ve zoomed out, the more I realize that early-stage investing is often transient. Founders moving to the next stage is expected and a great thing. I don’t think people realize that many VC investors move to later-stage investing if they’re successful and raise a larger fund. As the VC investors transition, so do the limited partners that invested in their funds. Given all of this, turnover at the earliest stage of investing is high for all stakeholders. I enjoy helping others navigate this transient environment.
• Impact – Helping founders at this stage can have a massive impact. The right piece of advice or the right introduction can change someone’s trajectory.
• Challenge – It’s a difficult stage to invest in. Many people shy away from pre-seed investing because of its challenges and the high failure rate. I view these as problems that can be solved for.

I don’t think the current VC construct for early-stage investing efficiently deploys capital outside traditional VC networks. It can be improved. I want to be part of that solution.

I was going back and forth with a buddy this week about Kobe Bryant’s mentality and why it led to outsize success in a league where he competed with the best of the best. I came across a short clip of him describing the “mamba mentality” and why it works. Here are my takeaways from the clip:

• Kobe’s mamba mentality was about being the best version of himself through continual improvement.
• Kobe understood the power of focusing on the right habits to produce his desired outcome. He developed a habit of training every day, which increased his chances of being the best. (Atomic Habits is great for understanding the power of habits.)
• Kobe understood the effect of compounding effort. He trained more often—four times a day—by starting early in the morning. With this much training, his skills improved rapidly. So much so that after five years, he was so far ahead of his peers that there was nothing they could do to catch him. In a league of the most gifted individuals, he left everyone in the dust.

Kobe’s clip reminded me of a post I shared a few months back. Self-improvement is the key to sustained outsize success. The biggest limit on your success is your ability to improve yourself.

Kobe was smart enough to develop his mamba mentality early in his career, and he became a legend. I’m not as smart as he is, so it took me longer to fully understand this mindset. Because I now understand how important it is, I have daily habits focused on improving myself by acquiring knowledge. I’ve been sharing daily posts for over two years, and that’s a big part of my efforts. I also spend around two hours a day learning. I can’t predict or control the outcome of these efforts, but if I stick with these habits, I’m confident I’ll have outsize success over the next few decades. Maybe I’ll be as fortunate as Kobe and leave my peers in the dust too.

I’m no Kobe Bryant, but I subscribe to his mamba mentality (in my own nerdy way!).

I’ve been looking for data to quantify how the network problem in VC affects fund returns and efficiency of capital allocation to early-stage founders. I suspect that VCs that subscribe to the usual approach have funds that perform worse than those with diverse networks closer to ground level (i.e., network entrepreneurs are already in). I’ve read several academic papers that dive into VC networks, but they’ve all looked at this from the perspective of existing VC networks. Said differently, the papers look at how well VCs network among themselves and how that affects fund performance.

My observation seems obvious, but it’s been challenging to find research or data on this point—either way. I’m starting to wonder why people haven’t spent more time looking at things from this perspective. Maybe it isn’t as obvious as it feels to me. I connected with one other person researching VC from this perspective, and he shared that he too feels like no one else is looking at things from this angle. There seems to be a miniscule contingent that is. Others accept the status quo in VC. This makes me wonder if this a unique insight that could be the foundation of a game-changing solution.

I’m not sure right now, but I’ll be keeping this top of mind as I progress. I’ll be excited if this is a unique insight!

Today marks the end of my one-hundred-twenty-eighth week of working from home (mostly). Here are my takeaways from week one hundred twenty-eight:

• Persistence – I’ve been trying to connect with certain people for months. I tried various ways to reach them that ended up being dead ends. But I didn’t give up. Finally, I networked my way into meetings with them. This week reminded me that persistence pays off. I just need to be patient while I’m being persistent.
• Community – Been thinking a lot about the importance of community for early founders. Community builders in start-up ecosystems don’t have it easy. Finding runway to build and sustain these communities is a hurdle.
• Understanding people – Understanding what drives someone’s actions is important. Why they do something can matter more than what they do. It’s not always easy to get to a person’s true motivation, but when you do, it can be game-changing information that helps you understand the best way to interact with them.

Week one hundred twenty-eight was short but productive. Looking forward to repeating the productivity next week.

The most important part of a city’s start-up ecosystem is the people in the ecosystem: founders, investors, university personnel, service providers, community builders, etc. How they think and the lens they view things through. How freely they share information and relationships with early founders. This all creates the culture of the ecosystem.

How people think and act is heavily influenced by the start-up history of a city. Changing that culture can be a slow process, but it can happen faster with big events (positive or negative). If a company has a big exit, people start to think a little bigger about what’s possible. The reverse can be true if a company creates a massive crater.

Remote work will stick around (in some form or fashion) for the foreseeable future. I suspect that a material number of people left cities where dreaming and thinking big was part of the start-up culture. They’ve seen the impossible happen and witnessed outsize outcomes from those efforts. As they settle into new cities and get acclimated to the start-up ecosystem there, I suspect they’ll add diversity of thought. I’m curious how this will affect the start-up cultures (for better or worse) of cities like Atlanta. Will the mass migration be a big event that has a lasting impact on start-up cultures?

I chatted with a venture investor today. He built a new approach to deploying early-stage capital to early founders. It’s doing well and could prove impactful. I asked what he’d learned from watching this new approach to investing take off. He said he learned that there is no right way in venture capital—there’s only the way that’s available to you.

He shared a ton of other great things that I’ll digest shortly, but this one immediately stuck out to me because I don’t think it’s historically been true of the venture capital industry. The network problem in VC applied to outsiders looking to enter the industry as investors and, of course, founders seeking capital. No way was available to people outside traditional venture capital networks.

The pandemic and other factors have changed venture capital. I think we’ll begin to see new ways for high-potential venture investors to raise and deploy capital and for high-potential founders to connect with investors and access capital. When that happens, the entrepreneurial impact will be massive.

Today I had a productive whiteboarding session about a problem I’ve been thinking about. I’ve been chatting with a buddy about the problem regularly, but those phone calls and Zooms have their limits. Recognizing this, we decided it was time to whiteboard some things out. The exercise helped us crystalize our thoughts and pinpoint critical areas to focus on.

The whiteboard itself isn’t revolutionary. It’s just a place to capture and sort your thoughts. I enjoy whiteboarding sessions because participants are in problem-solving mode. This mental state is important. The collaboration and focus on ideation about a single problem are powerful.

Looking forward to next steps stemming from today’s session.

Happy Labor Day!

I hope everyone had a safe and healthy holiday!

‍

Entrepreneurs and others who have outsize success are often described as crazy. They do things that others wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do. They take nontraditional paths and embrace the risk of doing so. Admittedly, my family and close friends have called me crazy for some decisions I’ve made through the years. I agree that founders and others who push the envelope are different, but I’m not sure that crazy is the best way to describe them.

Many people see the future as a continuation of the past (possibly with slight modifications). With this accepted, safe perspective, they take similar paths and do similar things in their lives. Unsurprisingly, their outcomes aren’t out of the ordinary. Entrepreneurs see the world differently. They view the future as something that can be molded into what they want. They understand that creating that future requires blazing a new trail or taking one less traveled. Their actions go against the grain of what everyone else is doing and can seem odd; hence the “crazy” label.

Founders and others who have outsize success are as sane as anyone (usually!). The difference is their perspective. They see the world differently than everyone else and their conviction is strong—so strong that they’re comfortable backing it up with actions others aren’t likely to take or understand.

After they’ve had success and made an impact, people stop thinking of them as crazy and start thinking of them as geniuses. Nobody ever changed the world by doing what everybody else does.