Latest / The Learning Corner by Precursor / Episode #17: DeepSeek, Importance of Running a Fundraising Auction, Growing Seed Round Sizes

Transcript

Episode #17: DeepSeek, Importance of Running a Fundraising Auction, Growing Seed Round Sizes · The Learning Corner by Precursor

• 0:00
  You wanna make technology broadly available, this history tells us that eventually it has to
• 0:03
  become cheap and ubiquitous.
• 0:04
  In many cases, it was an architecture innovation that allowed people to dramatically
• 0:09
  scale these things out, and I think time will tell whether DeepSeq's reinforcement learning
• 0:13
  approach was the architecture innovation we needed to dramatically lower costs and make AI
• 0:18
  more widely available.
• 0:19
  It's the week of January 27th.
• 0:22
  Welcome to the learning corner, a Precursor Ventures podcast.
• 0:29
  Welcome to the learning corner by Precursor.
• 0:31
  I'm Mia Farnham, and I'm joined by 2 of our Precursor team members, Charles and Marina,
• 0:37
  where we will be talking through the articles and Goodreads that caught our team's attention
• 0:41
  over the past week.
• 0:42
  Obviously, Chinese company DeepSeq has been the talk of the tech ecosystem for this week as it
• 0:48
  debuted an AI app that rivals OpenAI's ChatGPT and claims to do so on a fraction of the costs
• 0:55
  than our more well known foundational LLMs have burned through.
• 0:57
  There's been a tidal wave of content flowing around deep seek in the last handful of days,
• 1:02
  but one that caught our eye came from Steven Sinoffsky's hardcore software newsletter titled
• 1:08
  DeepSeek has been inevitable.
• 1:09
  So in this piece, Steven shares the POV that a company building a low cost AI model was bound
• 1:14
  to happen eventually.
• 1:15
  It's really just a matter of time and who would be the player to do it.
• 1:18
  So lots of different directions to go here more generally, the NVIDIA market cap drop,
• 1:23
  questions of deep sea being truthful in cost, building the model, trickle effect onto
• 1:28
  efficiency concerns around the US LLM companies and more.
• 1:31
  Really all topics that our listeners can get pretty robust rundowns on through other
• 1:35
  sources.
• 1:35
  But Marina, you have an awesome background in the semiconductor space.
• 1:39
  So I would actually love to start here with you and asking how you reacted to the news.
• 1:43
  I'll start with Nvidia because that's where I'm getting the most questions.
• 1:47
  I think the hysteric about Nvidia is a bit overblown.
• 1:51
  However, I think the stock drop of 17% or whatever it was, I think that was warranted.
• 1:57
  On a relative basis, I think 70% is a pretty fair drop given deep seeks new model and its
• 2:03
  impact directly on Nvidia's sales.
• 2:05
  And that has to be taken into account.
• 2:07
  DeepSeq basically just prove that companies building it.
• 2:10
  Don't have to blindly buy more and more Nvidia GPU's to make their models better.
• 2:15
  And they don't also have to buy the newest and most expensive version every time, which is a
• 2:20
  huge part of Nvidia's business model.
• 2:22
  So of course that means they're gonna get slightly less revenue.
• 2:25
  I have to mention the flip side with, you know, more accessibility and more affordability and
• 2:31
  building these models now that means more competition and more people that will start
• 2:35
  buying Nvidia GPU's to build even a more efficient model.
• 2:39
  And there'll just be more usage.
• 2:41
  And, just because deep state didn't necessarily use the newest version of Nvidia's chip because
• 2:47
  they didn't have access to it.
• 2:48
  Supposedly that doesn't mean that companies in the US can't refine DeepSeq's model and use
• 2:54
  Nvidia's more pronounced h one hundred chip to improve their models.
• 2:58
  So I think the market has to take into account the huge change in Nvidia's business model and
• 3:04
  what the customer profile is going to look like.
• 3:06
  But I think there are some wins and losses, but focusing on early stage tech in general, I
• 3:12
  think the deep seek news had me pretty optimistic for the future.
• 3:15
  I mean, something we've talked about a precursor a ton is that it's hard to invest in
• 3:19
  this space right now because of how rapidly things are changing in AI every day.
• 3:23
  It's hard to guess what the future will look like.
• 3:26
  And this week, that change was DeepSeq's model, and I'm excited for it.
• 3:31
  As you guys know, I've thought a lot about the massive amounts of energy demanded as we add
• 3:35
  more and more compute for AI and what this means from more as from a sustainability
• 3:40
  standpoint.
• 3:40
  I know there are companies building in different directions, whether they're building
• 3:43
  a new chip to compete with NVIDIA or trying to change the infrastructure surrounding that
• 3:48
  chip.
• 3:49
  And I've always been rooting more for the latter.
• 3:51
  And DeepSeq did that and took a massive step in that direction and is using significantly less
• 3:56
  chips and thus less power.
• 3:57
  And that makes me excited.
• 3:59
  And personally, I hope that the next person or company can iterate on DeepSeq's version and
• 4:04
  make it even more efficient.
• 4:06
  That all said, of course, there are questions on national security of DeepSeq and if the
• 4:10
  administration will do anything about it.
• 4:12
  But in the short term, I am really happy about the news, and I think it's a step in the right
• 4:16
  direction.
• 4:17
  Thanks, Marina.
• 4:18
  Charles, anything to add there from your perspective?
• 4:20
  The reason I enjoyed this article is I too felt it was inevitable in the sense that we had kind
• 4:24
  of a monolithic view of how AI was gonna develop.
• 4:27
  And I think in tech, in so many instances, when you have a consensus monolithic view of where
• 4:32
  technology is going, there's always somebody who takes the other side of that bet.
• 4:35
  And if the original bet was really expensive chips, tons of training data, big data centers,
• 4:40
  to me, it was inevitable someone was gonna say, well, I don't have access to those resources,
• 4:44
  and I'm facing a different set of constraints, which is I can't get access either financially
• 4:48
  or politically to the current generation of hardware.
• 4:51
  I don't have unlimited access to capital.
• 4:53
  I don't have unlimited access to power.
• 4:54
  So I'm facing a different set of constraints, and I think that's what makes tech to me so
• 4:58
  interesting is that most people build in response to constraints.
• 5:01
  And I think with DeepSeq, you see a different set of constraints can produce a different set
• 5:05
  of outcomes.
• 5:05
  And my hope is that the approaches that people use to building AI models continue to diversify
• 5:11
  and that we get more people running more experiments because I think we're still really
• 5:14
  early in this tech, and I think the industry would benefit from having more people pursuing
• 5:19
  different approaches at this point because we still don't really know what works best.
• 5:22
  Stephen says in the article, quote, the history of computing is one of innovation followed by
• 5:29
  scale up, which is then broken by a model that scales out when a bigger and faster approach is
• 5:34
  replaced by smaller and more numerous approaches.
• 5:37
  Anything else that you might wanna add to that kind of hypothesis?
• 5:40
  I think the Internet has lots of predicates, whether it's mainframes and PCs.
• 5:43
  If you wanna make technology broadly available, it's a situation that eventually it has to
• 5:47
  become cheap and ubiquitous.
• 5:48
  We got that with the Internet.
• 5:49
  We got that with mobile phones.
• 5:51
  We got that with PCs.
• 5:52
  These things started out really expensive.
• 5:53
  And eventually, ironically, in many cases, it was an architecture innovation that allowed
• 5:57
  people to dramatically scale these things out.
• 6:00
  And I think time will tell whether DeepSeq's reinforcement learning approach was the
• 6:04
  architecture innovation we needed to dramatically lower costs and make AI more
• 6:08
  widely available.
• 6:08
  The second piece is a LinkedIn post by Aaron Harris titled always run an auction.
• 6:13
  In this post, Aaron advises founders to create competitive dynamics during fundraising by
• 6:18
  running an auction, auction, essentially positioning their round as an opportunity that
• 6:22
  investors need to move quickly on.
• 6:24
  Obviously, easier said than done, but Aaron argues that competitive tension and building
• 6:28
  momentum is critical for getting the best possible terms and conditions for a raise.
• 6:33
  He shares practical advice on timing, messaging, and managing conversations to create
• 6:38
  urgency while cautioning founders not to overplay their hand or alienate investors.
• 6:43
  So Charles, Aaron emphasizes the importance of building competitive dynamics during
• 6:48
  fundraising.
• 6:49
  How do we advise founders in our portfolio to approach this?
• 6:53
  Additionally, this might seem well understood by investors, but for founders, what are the
• 6:57
  key signals that indicate an investor is truly engaged versus just, you know, taking a
• 7:02
  meeting, or what's the difference between being preempted and actually just getting an early
• 7:07
  phone call to check somebody out?
• 7:09
  Yeah.
• 7:09
  I met Aaron when he was doing the series a program for YC, and I feel like he gave a lot
• 7:14
  of the companies I knew really good advice, So I'm glad he made this post.
• 7:18
  This one plus 1st round wrote a post a long time ago about fundraising and waves.
• 7:22
  Those are probably the 2 that I share with people.
• 7:24
  And over time, I've become sympathetic to the plight of founders.
• 7:27
  I think most founders do not enjoy the fundraising process, and anything that can make
• 7:30
  it shorter and faster is usually desired.
• 7:33
  I think it's really important to run a good process, and I would say one of the biggest
• 7:36
  challenges I have is convincing founders that they should do that.
• 7:39
  Because if you read this article, running a good process is actually a lot of work.
• 7:42
  It's a lot of work to try to keep everybody on the same schedule, to try to be organized
• 7:46
  enough that you can move people through phase stages.
• 7:49
  But I think the outcome of running a good process is you get really good price discovery
• 7:52
  and figure out what is the market think your company's worth.
• 7:54
  As the article says, if you think about demo day as the ultimate auction, you get hundreds
• 7:58
  of investors in a single place trying to make decisions in a really compressed time period.
• 8:03
  That's about as much leverage as you can get as a founder, but most people don't have the
• 8:07
  benefit of being part of a program that has an oversubscribed demo day.
• 8:10
  I've walked lots of founders through this process, and they go, yes.
• 8:14
  This sounds great.
• 8:14
  Then they get an inbound email from an investor that they think is interesting.
• 8:18
  Like, we're getting preempted.
• 8:19
  I'm like, you're not getting preempted.
• 8:20
  You got an email.
• 8:21
  Somebody heard what you were doing and sent you an email.
• 8:23
  And for a long time, Venture didn't do as much outbound as they do now.
• 8:26
  Now I think most firms do a ton of outbound.
• 8:28
  So getting that email doesn't mean what it used to mean.
• 8:30
  But I think for a lot of founders, the prospect of somebody, a, being interested in your
• 8:33
  company, and, b, being able to raise around without having to do all of the process
• 8:37
  oriented stuff that Aaron says.
• 8:38
  It's very attractive, but I've seen 2 things go wrong.
• 8:41
  1 is you spend a bunch of time with 1 firm, and you don't get a term sheet.
• 8:44
  And then you're like, great.
• 8:46
  I have to start this whole process over having lost time and momentum.
• 8:49
  Or, b, you get single threaded with 1 firm.
• 8:52
  They give you an offer.
• 8:53
  It's not great, but you have the offer in hand, and you're like, do I wanna walk away from this
• 8:57
  offer, or do I wanna go run a full process?
• 8:59
  And, you know, that usually comes down to the risk tolerance of the founder.
• 9:02
  And so I think when you run an auction, you're getting feedback along the way about how
• 9:05
  interested people are in your business.
• 9:07
  And I think that's a better set of facts from which to make a decision about, hey.
• 9:10
  Should I take this offer from firm a or firm b than one conversation and one term g?
• 9:14
  Being on the operating side, I remember when you're getting inbound from an investor,
• 9:21
  diligence process kind of by accident, and you find yourself spending all of your team's
• 9:25
  resources to fill out large diligence questions, filling out cohort analyses.
• 9:29
  And I think investors are really good at selling that there's something at the end of
• 9:33
  this when in fact, maybe they've made a decision 2 weeks prior that this isn't quite
• 9:37
  it, but they're gonna round out the process in the end to tie it off in a nice bow.
• 9:42
  And so it's always fascinating to hear what are the signals that show maybe pump the brakes, or
• 9:46
  this is not actually the diligence process that you have to exert so much of your resources on.
• 9:51
  Marina, I wanted to ask you what are maybe some of those signals that founders can look for?
• 9:57
  I think it's great if you have that inbound interest and you wanna continue to build on it.
• 10:01
  Like Charles said, like the article said, I think where I try and give a lot of advice to
• 10:06
  founders is to be very careful in the words that you use when you try to build momentum
• 10:11
  and, and try to create this FOMO with other investors.
• 10:15
  I think you still have to be very careful not to lie or especially not even to over
• 10:20
  exaggerate to the point where an investor would consider it a lie.
• 10:24
  So just always remember VCs all know each other.
• 10:27
  So if you're saying one fund is in diligence or another fund has committed, we're going to talk
• 10:33
  to those people and just confirm that it's true.
• 10:35
  And the second that that fund says anything to the contrary of what you said, it's a red flag.
• 10:41
  And VCs sort of look for any reason to say no.
• 10:44
  So the last thing you wanna do is to hand them that reason yourself.
• 10:48
  I typically try to give some grace to first time founders because all this lingo is very
• 10:53
  confusing and made up, but the most common mistake I probably see is a founder saying they
• 10:57
  have a commitment.
• 10:58
  We try and tell founders to be very careful when using that word.
• 11:02
  We tell them, you know, you don't really have a commitment until you have assigned a term
• 11:06
  sheet.
• 11:06
  Even if a VC tells you verbally, yes, we are going to invest just until you get the lead.
• 11:13
  Just be on the safe side.
• 11:14
  Don't call it a commitment until you have that signed term sheet.
• 11:18
  If you do wanna communicate that sort of momentum and create FOMO, you could say
• 11:21
  something like, we have X amount soft circle just depending on terms and a lead.
• 11:26
  But the last thing you wanna do is lie.
• 11:29
  And maybe it's not in any malicious way.
• 11:31
  You it sounds when someone says verbally, yes, we're going to invest that that is a
• 11:35
  commitment, but it's very easy for investors to take that back.
• 11:38
  So just be very careful when trying to create this momentum, but it's obviously important
• 11:43
  that you do so because you wanna create FOMO around your round and you wanna get it done as
• 11:46
  quickly as possible.
• 11:47
  Even the term soft commitment is hard.
• 11:49
  And I know for founders, it's something that it's maybe one of the only intangible, tangible
• 11:53
  things you can hold to when you're looking for the lead.
• 11:55
  But I found that's a tough thing when founders share me the soft commitments because those
• 12:01
  could fall apart at any moment.
• 12:03
  Charles, question for you.
• 12:04
  Would there be advice for founders to maybe always have an updated diligence room in the
• 12:09
  back end in the case of somebody out outbound?
• 12:11
  How do you manage that?
• 12:12
  I've certainly seen companies who've told me, well, we're not fundraising.
• 12:16
  I'm like, okay.
• 12:16
  Great.
• 12:16
  Do you have anything I can look at?
• 12:18
  Yeah.
• 12:18
  We have a full data room, and I'm like, well, this sure looks like the level of preparation
• 12:22
  that a company that's fundraising would do.
• 12:24
  And I think the other part about running an auction is it forces you to do a bunch of the
• 12:29
  work upfront to put together the data room and to be ready to go, but you choose sort of when
• 12:34
  you fire the start up.
• 12:35
  What I tell people is there are certain things you should kind of all like, your cap table
• 12:39
  should generally always be up to date.
• 12:40
  Most of your incorporation docs, they're not that hard to keep those up to date.
• 12:44
  To me, the things that are harder are, like, if you don't have an investor ready set of cohort
• 12:48
  analysis for going back 24 months, I don't know if it's worthwhile to keep that stuff handy if
• 12:53
  you're not already using it to run the business, and you might have it in a version
• 12:57
  that you could present to your board or to your team, but maybe not for external consumption.
• 13:03
  In most cases, when people tell me, oh, we're thinking about raising, I'm like, well, what's
• 13:06
  the plan?
• 13:07
  And if the plan is one random firm sent us an email, and I like the partner, I'm gonna talk
• 13:11
  to them.
• 13:12
  I was like, to your point, Mia, you can find yourself sucked into a process that you didn't
• 13:15
  intend to get in.
• 13:16
  It's oftentimes what I try to tell people is, listen.
• 13:18
  We're either gonna fundraise or we're not gonna fundraise.
• 13:20
  If we're not gonna fundraise, you should tell these folks, hey.
• 13:22
  Right now, we're not raising.
• 13:24
  We're busy operating.
• 13:25
  We have a plan to fundraise.
• 13:26
  I will be in touch with you.
• 13:28
  And I was like, just because somebody emailed you and said they wanna know a lot about your
• 13:31
  business, doesn't mean you as a founder are obligated to do anything.
• 13:33
  You don't even need to acknowledge I mean, it's polite to acknowledge the email and say, hey.
• 13:36
  Thank you for your interest.
• 13:37
  We're not fundraising, but you don't even owe them that.
• 13:40
  So I I get it.
• 13:41
  And I think the reason VCs send so many of these emails is because it works, because I
• 13:45
  think it's flattering as a founder to get an email from an investor saying, you don't know
• 13:48
  me, but I'm interested in your business.
• 13:50
  And the real question is why?
• 13:51
  Are they interested in investing?
• 13:52
  Are they looking at investing in your competitor and they're trying to make sure they
• 13:55
  have a good picture of you?
• 13:56
  Are they just trying to do a market map?
• 13:57
  You don't always know.
• 13:58
  So I I try to help people figure out how do we qualify this interest before we go spend a
• 14:03
  bunch of time answering questions and doing work for them.
• 14:05
  Marina, I think you and I, we lean in to outbound pretty heavily.
• 14:09
  I think one of the best questions I hear founders ask, which I think is a good
• 14:12
  indication that they know how to suss out what investors are actually interested is what gets
• 14:16
  you excited about the space that I've been building across, and what's kind of your
• 14:19
  perspective on that space?
• 14:20
  Because then it shows that they're really interested in you and not just which investors
• 14:25
  do all the time, send out a ton of outbound, like 16 notes in 4 hours to as many founders as
• 14:30
  they can find online.
• 14:31
  Our final topic is from Crunchbase News titled seed rounds got larger through the downturn.
• 14:37
  Why is that?
• 14:38
  So while much of the venture funding ecosystem has contracted during the downturn, seed rounds
• 14:42
  have really bucked the trend.
• 14:44
  So growing larger even as the broader market slowed down since 2021.
• 14:48
  There's a few things to note here to continue the conversation over.
• 14:51
  So while seed deals by size are getting larger, they're also getting harder to come by.
• 14:55
  It's a little bit more competitive.
• 14:56
  Seed round sizes of more than 5,000,000 make up a large share of seed rounds.
• 15:00
  And since 2022, those larger seed rounds have received more additional investment than seed
• 15:05
  rounds of 5,000,000 or less.
• 15:08
  The larger rounds could be due to the higher benchmark required of founders in order to
• 15:12
  graduate to series a resulting in, you know, longer seed stages and requiring more runway.
• 15:17
  What's very clear is that there's a variance on valuations at seed, and that's really high
• 15:23
  still.
• 15:23
  So investors are still all playing the stage differently.
• 15:26
  Charles, I know there's different vehicles of which to carry out seed rounds, whether it be
• 15:30
  priced or safes, but the median seed round size, according to a couple of articles, was
• 15:35
  around 1,500,000 in 2011 and has since crawled north of 5,000,000 in today's market.
• 15:41
  So from your perspective, what might be the pros and cons of that round size and the growth
• 15:45
  that it experienced?
• 15:46
  I think there's a bunch of factors that work here.
• 15:48
  I think one of them is purely mechanical.
• 15:51
  I've seen companies in our portfolio, companies in my friends' portfolios.
• 15:54
  It used to be you did one seed round and that was it, but I think it was Hunter who said a
• 15:58
  while ago, like, seed as a face.
• 15:59
  And now what I see oftentimes is a company will do a $1,000,000 safe as a pre seed, a
• 16:04
  $3,000,000 first seed, a second seed round as a price round.
• 16:08
  They will roll the whole thing up and convert all the safes, and they will announce it as a
• 16:12
  $6,000,000 seed round.
• 16:13
  People will go, oh my gosh.
• 16:14
  That's a huge seed round.
• 16:15
  I'm like, well, it's only only a third of those dollars are actually new money into the
• 16:18
  company.
• 16:19
  And I think one reason to do that is purely mechanical, just to to account for the previous
• 16:23
  days.
• 16:23
  2nd, I think most founders wanna project strength.
• 16:26
  And it sure sounds better to say, I raised a $6,000,000 seed round even if not all of that
• 16:30
  money is new than to say that I raised $2,000,000 seed round of new capital.
• 16:35
  And so in the same way that I've seen journalists push for more answers on revenue
• 16:40
  and valuation when they report on fundraising, I really hope they start pushing people to
• 16:44
  disclose, well, how much of this seed round was new capital versus the conversion or roll up of
• 16:49
  previous capital.
• 16:50
  I don't think it's in most founders' incentive to share that number, but it would be good to
• 16:54
  know.
• 16:54
  I think that's part of it.
• 16:56
  2nd, I think we've been in this weird thing since 2011 where every year I feel like it was
• 17:00
  the series a bar has gone up.
• 17:01
  I'm like, well, it goes up every year.
• 17:02
  Life is hard.
• 17:03
  And I think some firms reaction to, well, if the series a bar is higher, you sort of have
• 17:07
  two choices.
• 17:08
  Give companies the same amount of money or slightly more and ask them to be more
• 17:12
  efficient, or find founders who are capable of clearing that high bar with less money or give
• 17:16
  companies more money with the belief that, well, if we give them more money, it increases
• 17:19
  the probability that they will clear that high bar.
• 17:21
  And I think that is an untrue statement and probably some of the most heated arguments I
• 17:26
  have with seed fund investors are, I think it's a crime to give these companies 36 months of
• 17:31
  runway pre product market fit.
• 17:32
  It's just too much money.
• 17:33
  It it creates bad habits.
• 17:35
  They tend to spend too much that you lose the urgency of finding the answer.
• 17:39
  And I'm a big believer that until you have product market fit, you should keep the burn
• 17:43
  really low.
• 17:44
  And I find that everyone says, yeah.
• 17:45
  We're gonna raise 36 months of runway.
• 17:47
  Don't worry.
• 17:47
  Like, we're not gonna lean into spend.
• 17:49
  And 6 months later, you're like, why are there 12 people at this pre product market fit?
• 17:52
  Well, you know, launches in 6 months, so we hired a marketer so that we could be ready for
• 17:56
  launch.
• 17:56
  But we don't have a product.
• 17:57
  What do you mean launches in 6 months?
• 17:59
  And I just think the answer to a higher series a bar is not to give companies more money
• 18:04
  upfront.
• 18:04
  It's a demand higher performance.
• 18:06
  And you all know me.
• 18:07
  I've leaned very hard until you need to make this money work and to clear the bar no matter
• 18:11
  what the bar is.
• 18:12
  And I've had almost universally bad experiences with these companies that raise really large
• 18:17
  seed rounds before they have product market fit or even a notion of what they wanna build.
• 18:21
  There's just so much pressure placed on founders when they raise these larger seed
• 18:24
  rounds.
• 18:24
  Maria, last question for you.
• 18:26
  They happen though raising these big seeds.
• 18:29
  What are things that really strong investors can provide as tidbits or tips for founders who
• 18:36
  have done that, especially maybe if they're first time founders, to just make sure that
• 18:39
  they're staying ahead of the ball because I've found that investors who join those rounds,
• 18:43
  most of them won't even pipe in throughout the burn until the very end when they've realized
• 18:48
  that nothing really has materialized, and then they're blaming it all on the founder.
• 18:52
  I always think back to Charles, that piece you wrote a while ago about the last 2.50 k.
• 18:56
  I think that applies pretty strongly here.
• 18:57
  In summary, if you only have 4 to 6 months of runway left, you act very differently than if
• 19:02
  you had 24 months.
• 19:03
  You focus on specific things.
• 19:05
  You have a much smaller team that can execute a lot faster.
• 19:08
  If something doesn't work, you move on and you break things and you move fast.
• 19:12
  And I think that really applies regardless of how much capital you have, like your pre
• 19:17
  product market fit.
• 19:17
  You don't know what works yet.
• 19:19
  So test different customers, test different models, do many experiments.
• 19:23
  And then, you know, if that doesn't work quickly move on.
• 19:25
  And that's sort of a benefit with a smaller team that you can all collectively move on
• 19:29
  pretty quickly.
• 19:30
  So always a proponent of breaking fast.
• 19:32
  I mean, it applies to deep seek as well.
• 19:34
  I mean, one of the reasons that they figured out this model and the US necessarily didn't is
• 19:40
  because they had all those limitations around resources and capital.
• 19:43
  They were just having such a different focus of, okay, we have such little to work with.
• 19:47
  How do we still compete with everyone else that's out there with the limited capability?
• 19:51
  And they were able to figure it out.
• 19:53
  The US wasn't focused on operational efficiency because they had endless amounts of capital.
• 19:57
  So it does a, it's a very different two ways to think of it.
• 20:00
  I think just so you know, focusing and breaking things, if it's not working, if this team isn't
• 20:05
  focused on the right thing, let them know and move beyond that.
• 20:07
  A great way to tie it all back together.
• 20:09
  We are all out of time for today.
• 20:11
  Thank you, Marina.
• 20:12
  Thank you, Charles, for joining in today.
• 20:14
  Thank you to our listeners for jumping in.
• 20:16
  Please like and subscribe, and we will talk to you all next week.
• 20:19
  Thank you.
• 20:20
  Bye.