Latest / The Learning Corner by Precursor / Episode #69: Anthropic's Safety Reckoning, Jack Dorsey Cuts Block in Half, The Venture Consensus Addiction

Transcript

Episode #69: Anthropic's Safety Reckoning, Jack Dorsey Cuts Block in Half, The Venture Consensus Addiction · The Learning Corner by Precursor

• 0:00
  I'll be very curious to see if we fast forward ten years, were these billion dollar inception
• 0:05
  stage companies good investments?
• 0:07
  They might turn to be good companies, but were they good investments?
• 0:10
  That's something I always come back to is a good investment is investment that makes you a
• 0:14
  really good return relative to the risk that you're taking.
• 0:16
  There could be a good company that's a bad investment for you.
• 0:19
  It's the week of March 2.
• 0:21
  Welcome to the Learning Corner, a Precursor Ventures podcast.
• 0:29
  Welcome to the Learning Corner by Precursor.
• 0:30
  I'm Mia Farnam, and I'm joined by our GP and managing partner, Charles Hudson, where we will
• 0:35
  be talking through the articles and Goodreads that caught our team's attention over the past
• 0:40
  week.
• 0:41
  For our first piece this week, an anthropic researcher named Mirank Sharma published his
• 0:46
  resignation letter publicly on Substack where it then spread quickly across different
• 0:50
  channels.
• 0:50
  He spent two years at the company after finishing his PhD contributing to foundational
• 0:55
  safety work, including writing one of Anthropic's first AI safety cases.
• 0:59
  What drove him out wasn't dissatisfaction with the work itself.
• 1:03
  It was a deeper reckoning with whether the company's values were actually governing its
• 1:07
  actions in place.
• 1:08
  Meerong's departure comes right as Anthropic made a major policy reversal that's worth
• 1:13
  layering in here.
• 1:14
  Time reported last week that Anthropic is walking back the central promise of its
• 1:18
  responsible scaling policy, a commitment it made in 2023 to never train a new model unless
• 1:24
  it could guarantee adequate safety measures were in place first.
• 1:27
  The company is now framing that position as untenable, given that competitors aren't making
• 1:31
  the same commitments and federal AI regulation never materialized under the current
• 1:35
  administration.
• 1:36
  Their CSO, Jared Kaplan, put it plainly, we didn't really feel with the rapid advance of AI
• 1:42
  that it made sense for us to make unilateral commitments if competitors are blazing ahead.
• 1:47
  Mironk didn't name this directly, but he writes about repeatedly watching the organization face
• 1:52
  pressure to set aside what mattered most and ultimately deciding he wanted to work in a way
• 1:56
  that felt fully in his integrity.
• 1:58
  Anthropics latest valuation sits at 380,000,000,000, and the Talent AI war between
• 2:04
  them and OpenAI seems to make a major headline every week.
• 2:08
  We don't know Meerong personally, so I can only speak to what he shared in the letter itself.
• 2:13
  But what it reflects is even amidst the kind of wealth accumulation that joining one of these
• 2:18
  companies can offer, there are people on the inside who are genuinely uncertain whether the
• 2:23
  reward is worth the broader unknown risks.
• 2:25
  Charles, I know you mentioned last week that this was the first tech wave you've experienced
• 2:29
  where there hasn't been clear consensus about charging forward for the parties involved.
• 2:34
  So did this piece surprise you or something like this coming out?
• 2:37
  I also thought about it in the context of all the stuff around the Department of War and Yep.
• 2:41
  The use of this technology.
• 2:43
  I read this and I was like, oh, this kind of reminded me of, like, don't be evil when Google
• 2:47
  went into China.
• 2:48
  And two things can be true.
• 2:50
  I think it can be very true that in 2023, the people at Anthropic, and I I don't I don't work
• 2:55
  there, so this all speculation, felt very strongly that, like, that was a principled
• 2:59
  position that they could hold.
• 3:01
  And that they I'm sure they were like, there's probably some level of conflict that we can
• 3:05
  envision between this value and the business directive, but we think it's tenable.
• 3:09
  And I don't think anybody could have predicted that we'd be in the state of the world that
• 3:13
  we're in right now with AI given all the advances.
• 3:15
  And I think, you know, there's that old saying about, you know, values should cost you
• 3:19
  something.
• 3:19
  I'm paraphrasing.
• 3:20
  And I think they concluded that maintaining this value, as a person said, pretty plainly,
• 3:24
  like, it just is not tenable, which doesn't mean that it was never important.
• 3:28
  It just means that the company doesn't believe they can continue to achieve their business
• 3:33
  goals.
• 3:33
  And I think this is one of the challenges you have as a company when you decide to take a
• 3:38
  position or a stand on something.
• 3:39
  It can become more expensive over time.
• 3:42
  And if you're not prepared to defend it, there'll be some people who will question,
• 3:45
  well, did we ever mean it in the first place?
• 3:47
  And, you know, I don't think we know enough about the specifics of what OpenAI agreed to do
• 3:52
  with the Department of War, but there are all these questions about if you're a technology
• 3:56
  provider.
• 3:56
  And same thing when when there was a whole thing, well, hey.
• 3:58
  Should Google work with the military?
• 4:00
  There are a lot of people at Google who felt like, hey.
• 4:01
  Didn't sign up for this.
• 4:02
  And I think on the one hand, it's hard to sell people on joining a company that has a mission
• 4:07
  and then changing the meaning of that mission midway through.
• 4:10
  You are, of course, going to lose people.
• 4:12
  Also, I I think corporations were in a different place in 2020 and 2021.
• 4:17
  I think they cared a lot more about how their employees felt about the nature of the work.
• 4:21
  Yeah.
• 4:21
  I think given the layoffs and the cost pressure, I think companies are kind of like,
• 4:26
  we're just gonna do what we plan to do.
• 4:27
  We're back we're back to the old world.
• 4:29
  Back.
• 4:29
  We've been there for a few years.
• 4:30
  We're back to the old world where there might be some mission orientation to the company when
• 4:33
  you join, but these value statements are flexible.
• 4:36
  And if they become inconvenient or untenable, companies will change them.
• 4:40
  My one question or thought about this was I was wondering, I assume it's coming internally,
• 4:44
  where the pressure is coming from to abandon specific policies like the one that Anthropic
• 4:49
  is leaving behind.
• 4:50
  Because it's very clear that as of today, OpenAI and Anthropic, they are the front
• 4:54
  runners.
• 4:54
  I know that investors love to say like, oh, we're definitely pushing those large companies
• 4:58
  for profitability, but doubtful just given the large reason.
• 5:02
  It wasn't like that was prohibitive to them to people becoming interested.
• 5:06
  So it is fascinating that a lot of this pressure is likely coming internally even
• 5:10
  though they are so likely the two leaders in this space.
• 5:13
  My suspicion is what you said is true because that's the side of the doubt.
• 5:17
  Like, we don't know what the internal Yeah.
• 5:19
  Slack and messaging conversations I remember when I was at Google, when Google went to
• 5:24
  China, the the amount of internal tension angst.
• 5:27
  There were a lot of people who were like, this is a violation of my perception of the company,
• 5:32
  and now I'm associated with something that I don't believe in.
• 5:35
  No matter how much you pay them.
• 5:37
  I'm not saying that these people are are not fairly compensated.
• 5:39
  Yeah.
• 5:40
  But if you're asking people to put in insane hours and make big sacrifices in their personal
• 5:44
  life, it's natural they're gonna identify with their work because you want them to.
• 5:48
  So when they identify with their work, you have to always be mindful of the fact that the
• 5:52
  company's identity and beliefs in some ways, they will see themselves in those.
• 5:56
  And if they don't see themselves reflected, they might say, why do I want even with, like,
• 6:00
  fabulous conversation, do I wanna spend sixty or eighty hours a week?
• 6:04
  I think it's one of the nice privileges of being well compensated in tech if you've been
• 6:08
  responsible with your money, no pun intended.
• 6:10
  You have the ability to say, don't need to or want to do this.
• 6:14
  This doesn't reflect I'm I'm guessing that, like, the janitor at Anthropic Yeah.
• 6:19
  Is facing a different Yes.
• 6:20
  Calculus and is being asked to do different things.
• 6:22
  And I don't mean privilege in a judgmental way.
• 6:24
  It is one of the privileges of the fact that, like, tech workers are generally well
• 6:27
  compensated that if you find companies that are not consistent with your values.
• 6:31
  I think I'd argue it's pretty hard to stay in commercial AI because I think right now
• 6:35
  everyone feels like, just wanna win, and I'll do almost whatever it takes, although with some
• 6:40
  limitations apparently based on the the Department of War stuff, to win, and I'll
• 6:44
  become a better citizen once we've won.
• 6:46
  Or or we're better guys than those guys, so it's better if we win than they win.
• 6:50
  And you can very quickly spiral on that stuff if you're not careful.
• 6:53
  Well, our next piece is a post that Jack Dorsey posted publicly on X last week, announcing that
• 6:58
  Block, his payments, and fintech company is reducing its workforce by nearly half, going
• 7:03
  from over 10,000 employees down to just under 6,000.
• 7:06
  That's more than 4,000 people let go or entering consultation, and Jack chose to share
• 7:11
  it publicly in his own words on the same day employees were notified.
• 7:14
  What made this one circulate so widely is the reasoning.
• 7:18
  Jack was really explicit that this is not a company in distress.
• 7:22
  Block's gross profit is growing.
• 7:23
  They're adding customers, and profitability is improving.
• 7:27
  The cut is happening because Jack believes that AI paired with smaller, flatter teams
• 7:32
  represents a fundamentally new way of building and running a company, and he decided it was
• 7:36
  better to act on that now than to drag out a slower reduction over months or years.
• 7:42
  He writes that repeated rounds of cuts destroy morale, focus, and trust.
• 7:46
  So he chose one hard, clear action instead.
• 7:49
  We've covered a handful of CEO statements about AI being at the forefront of how they're
• 7:54
  building their companies, but this is one of the largest workforce reductions we've seen as
• 7:59
  a percentage of total headcount out in the public.
• 8:01
  Do you think this becomes a catalyst that other companies of similar size start making similar
• 8:06
  cuts, or does this feel like it's still maybe on its own island for now?
• 8:11
  I think it's a excellent question, and I have, like, good friends who work to block, and so I
• 8:17
  feel really bad for them.
• 8:18
  That's a massive cut.
• 8:19
  I think we're also in this zone where when sometimes when there's something macro and I
• 8:24
  don't I don't know why they did this, so this is all speculation.
• 8:28
  I do think we're in an era right now where there is a premium for AI focused decision
• 8:34
  making, showing that you're putting AI at the forefront.
• 8:37
  And, you know, getting rid of 40% of your staff is a pretty strong statement.
• 8:42
  Now, I read some more cynical takes, which is like, well, the company had just overhired, and
• 8:47
  that this was as much about the sort of Twitter style.
• 8:50
  We have too many people relative to, like, what needs to be done, and rather than admit I don't
• 8:56
  I don't know, though, but, like, I that's plausible.
• 8:59
  But to overheard by 40% of the company seems like a lot.
• 9:02
  And I think it reminds me a lot of I think it was Klarna who got rid of all the customer
• 9:06
  service people, and then they're like, we might have overdone it.
• 9:09
  We haven't heard as much about that since then, but the tech's in a different And I suspect
• 9:13
  there are other CEOs in the Valley and in the Fortune 500 who are like, well, I'm glad Jack
• 9:19
  went first.
• 9:20
  Now maybe we can do something similar and not be out front and first.
• 9:27
  With all of these things, I always think it's interesting to see what happens.
• 9:31
  And tech is now in a, like, permanent layoff phase.
• 9:34
  It used to be that layoffs were these, like, singular events.
• 9:37
  They happen so often now in big tech, they're just not news anymore.
• 9:40
  When a big tech company cuts five or 10% of its workforce, and we think about how big some of
• 9:45
  these companies are, that's a lot of people.
• 9:46
  It's just ceased to be and in a lot of ways, tech has become like other large corporate
• 9:51
  entities where they're just constantly tinkering with not just the total workforce,
• 9:55
  but the balance of people across functions and roles.
• 9:58
  And I think what used to be a career that was safe in an industry that was in kind of
• 10:03
  permanent growth and hiring mode has really gone in the opposite direction.
• 10:07
  So I really do hope that we get insights into what happened at that Block.
• 10:11
  And I think the Twitter one's instructive.
• 10:13
  Like, Twitter Twitter didn't fall over when all those people left.
• 10:16
  I'd argue that it's probably not the same asset it was when all those people were there either.
• 10:21
  I mean, it was good timing.
• 10:21
  The Citrini Market Research came report came out last week, and you saw the markets reflect
• 10:26
  that reaction.
• 10:27
  Mean, Block's stock soared 24% after hours when that announcement was shared.
• 10:33
  What this decision assumes is that if this is, you know, done for truly AI purposes and not in
• 10:39
  a different business decision like we kind of alluded to.
• 10:42
  What this decision assumes is that the remaining employees are also prepared and
• 10:47
  upskilled enough to actually leverage these AI tools and absorb a new way of working without
• 10:52
  performance taking a hit.
• 10:54
  And while this is certainly more concrete than the leaked memos about AI efficiency that we've
• 11:00
  seen from other CEOs, I'd argue that the underlying dynamic is maybe similar, more about
• 11:06
  signaling or direction than demonstrating clear progress forward.
• 11:10
  Two things that, at least, for me, are worth thinking about.
• 11:13
  One is I do keep reading about a lot of CEOs who are focused on profit per employee.
• 11:18
  And my hunch is, if history is any guide, Black will not tip over tomorrow because all these
• 11:24
  people are gone.
• 11:25
  And the impact of people being gone, especially in large numbers and big companies, usually
• 11:30
  isn't felt for some period of time.
• 11:32
  And maybe this is the bet, which is usually what ends up happening is, like, you're not as
• 11:35
  responsive.
• 11:36
  You can't build as much stuff.
• 11:37
  You focus on the core.
• 11:38
  You miss new opportunities.
• 11:40
  Your company remains good at the core thing, but never gets better at anything else.
• 11:43
  And maybe the bet is that, like, AI breaks that paradigm.
• 11:46
  But I wouldn't be surprised if in the short term, Block's financial metrics improve
• 11:50
  dramatically.
• 11:50
  You've cut out a significant chunk of cost, and whatever the impact is of that on revenue is
• 11:55
  unlikely to show up in the same time period.
• 11:58
  Our last piece is a LinkedIn post from Nick Pulos, founder and GP over at Euclid Ventures.
• 12:03
  His core argument is that the venture industry has developed what he calls a consensus
• 12:07
  addiction and shares data to support the statement, seed startups priced below
• 12:12
  $20,000,000 are nearly four times more likely to produce a 50 x return than those priced
• 12:19
  above.
• 12:20
  And yet, the ninety fifth percentile seed pre money valuation just hit $80,000,000.
• 12:25
  That's up a 138% in a single year.
• 12:28
  Meanwhile, the number of rounds closed hit a decade low even as total dollars deployed hit a
• 12:33
  post twenty twenty two high with a six a z just raising $15,000,000,000, roughly 20% of all VC
• 12:40
  dollars deployed last year.
• 12:41
  Nick's argument is that capital is flooding into what he calls fundability, hot market
• 12:45
  signals, brand name, co investors, consensus legibility, and mistaking all of that for
• 12:50
  investability, meaning actual return potential.
• 12:53
  And his team traced back every billion dollar plus exit in 2025 back to its first check, and
• 12:58
  the data is consistent.
• 13:00
  The vast majority started with the 500 k to $5,000,000 raises.
• 13:04
  Platform funds were underrepresented relative to their AUM share.
• 13:07
  And the key takeaway here is counter to the behavior we see in the market today, if winners
• 13:12
  were legible at first check, the data would show it, and it doesn't.
• 13:16
  The forex return gap between sub 20,000,000 and above 20,000,000 c valuations is undeniably
• 13:22
  large.
• 13:22
  But my instinct is that this data alone won't change behavior.
• 13:25
  Funds will keep pricing rounds this way, and founders will keep opting in.
• 13:30
  My question is who actually benefits the most from Nick and the Euclid team putting this out
• 13:35
  there.
• 13:35
  And I know that's not what they wrote it for, but my question was like, okay.
• 13:37
  What does everyone do with this information now other than just kind of have a little public
• 13:41
  discourse on it via in the comment section?
• 13:43
  Well, I mean, we benefit.
• 13:45
  Like, I I obviously agree with Nick.
• 13:48
  I do think though I've talked to a fair number of LPs about this very topic, and there's a
• 13:53
  couple arguments I hear from them.
• 13:55
  Number one is, well, that's old data.
• 13:57
  The world isn't the same anymore.
• 13:59
  Yes.
• 13:59
  Once upon a time, that was true, but it's not true anymore.
• 14:03
  Second, you know, a lot of the big funds tell LPs we're good at everything.
• 14:08
  We're good at seed.
• 14:09
  We're good at a.
• 14:10
  We're good at multistage, and we have tremendous access.
• 14:13
  And there are two things I believe most LPs and GPs at larger funds believe.
• 14:18
  One is that they see all of the best stuff and that the best stuff is as identifiable at day
• 14:24
  one as it is at series a.
• 14:27
  And I think the latter part is the part where I think mistakes are made.
• 14:31
  So I do think if you just do the math also, it is a lot easier to get and this is something I
• 14:36
  tell LPs all the time.
• 14:37
  It is a lot easier to get high cash on cash multiples with low entry prices.
• 14:42
  And I will say there are some counter examples.
• 14:45
  Like, you look at Wiz, that's a company that started life very expensive, and whenever the
• 14:50
  deal closes will end life very expensive.
• 14:53
  And I think it was a 100 pre and 23,000,000,000.
• 14:56
  But the question is, like, is that the new normal or is that an outlier?
• 15:00
  And so I think right now, we're running an experiment which essentially says price doesn't
• 15:05
  matter anymore.
• 15:06
  The the counterargument is you take the VennCap plus Andreessen argument, which is that the
• 15:11
  scale of the winners is so big that if you can get companies that are 50 to $100,000,000,000
• 15:16
  in size, doesn't really matter.
• 15:18
  You get you actually can still get 50 times your money.
• 15:21
  But I'm like, but we just don't have that many of those companies.
• 15:25
  And I think, you know, it's very possible that we will, in seven years, have more regular
• 15:31
  trillion dollar private companies if you just have either some combination of asset price
• 15:35
  inflation and just the general growth of private markets.
• 15:38
  But that doesn't mean that that's the average underwriting outcome.
• 15:41
  We only have one SpaceX.
• 15:43
  We have one of those.
• 15:44
  We have, like, a Stripe.
• 15:45
  There's, like, 10 companies that are in this rare air.
• 15:48
  And, yes, the multistage people can capture those, and some of those companies started off
• 15:52
  life very expensive because Elon was involved.
• 15:55
  So I think part of this is, to some extent, the answer is both things can work.
• 16:00
  The question is, like, what's the balance?
• 16:02
  And right now, the balance of dollars is going into companies that are beginning life
• 16:07
  expensive, and the balance of dollars available for follow on.
• 16:10
  This is the part I think that people need to really internalize is when you start life as an
• 16:14
  expensive company backed by a multistage fund, you're just in a different universe of follow
• 16:19
  on fundraising considerations.
• 16:21
  You're already sort of in the club.
• 16:22
  It doesn't mean your next round is guaranteed.
• 16:24
  It doesn't mean they're gonna give you more money.
• 16:25
  You're already in the consideration set.
• 16:27
  Yeah.
• 16:27
  When you start off as, you know, two guys and a dog and a hot tub with 500 k, you've gotta,
• 16:32
  like, work hard to get the attention of the big funds.
• 16:36
  And sometimes you get their attention a la Cluelly by, like, breaking through the noise
• 16:39
  floor.
• 16:40
  And sometimes you get their attention through performance.
• 16:42
  But the companies that start with their attention are actually just living in a
• 16:45
  different world.
• 16:46
  And I'll be very curious to see if we fast forward ten years, were these billion dollar
• 16:52
  research lab compute based data center, whatever it might be, were these billion dollar
• 16:57
  inception stage companies good investments?
• 17:00
  They might turn to be good companies, but were they good investments?
• 17:02
  And that's something I always come back to is, like, a good investment is investment that
• 17:06
  makes you a really good return relative to the risk that you're taking.
• 17:09
  There could be a good company that's investment for you.
• 17:11
  And so we won't know, but right now the consensus is that price doesn't matter because
• 17:15
  outcomes are large and you shouldn't worry about it.
• 17:17
  And some ironically, some cases, low prices now become a negative signal.
• 17:21
  It's somehow like, oh, you couldn't raise five on 25 right out of the gates.
• 17:25
  Are you a bad founder?
• 17:26
  And some of our best companies started life very inexpensively, and I'm really glad that
• 17:31
  we're on their cap tables.
• 17:32
  There's two thoughts that came out of that.
• 17:34
  One was in the connection to Josh Kopelman's venture arrogance score of like, if you're a
• 17:39
  mega fund, you need all of these expensive deals in your portfolio.
• 17:43
  You need to win over I think when a six and z was raising a $15,000,000,000 fund, he's like,
• 17:47
  you need to be in 50% of every single high outcome deal.
• 17:51
  That's a lot.
• 17:52
  That's a lot of surface area.
• 17:53
  So the game is different.
• 17:54
  Paying up early to create signal or just have that option is so worth it.
• 17:59
  So that's also what's happening in the background.
• 18:02
  And then to your comment about, you know, fundability versus investability, Peter Walker
• 18:07
  had some good comments in the post after.
• 18:09
  You know, he said that at Carta, they saw the highest quartile of seed valuations as much
• 18:15
  more likely to become unicorns.
• 18:17
  So kind of like having that head start up for follow on capital.
• 18:20
  But the 50 x outcomes were spread essentially evenly across four valuation quartiles by year.
• 18:26
  If
• 18:27
  you think about it, who makes unicorns?
• 18:29
  Right.
• 18:29
  The only who can make unicorns are multistage funds.
• 18:32
  Someone's like, look at all the unicorns in this I'm like, well, made them all.
• 18:35
  They put the billion so if I could put a billion dollar valuation on every company we
• 18:39
  invested in, we would make a lot of unicorns at Precursor.
• 18:41
  And I'm not, like, making fun of the big ones.
• 18:43
  But I do think it's just one of these things that's, like, structurally, the people who
• 18:47
  assign the valuation are the ones who make the decision.
• 18:49
  And if you're already in a company and the company's familiar to you and your network and
• 18:53
  the founder is a good fundraiser and a good storyteller, that person has a good chance of
• 18:57
  getting to a billion dollar valuation independent of metrics and business progress.
• 19:00
  And so I am, like, very curious to see how this all plays out.
• 19:04
  And I think to your earlier point too, it causes people to do venture.
• 19:08
  I guess it causes you know, Sequoia's in Anthropic now, but much later than I would
• 19:13
  normally think of Sequoia.
• 19:14
  But if you're them, you kinda have to be in that company given its scale and scope.
• 19:18
  And look.
• 19:19
  If you've got there's a lot of ways to return a big fund.
• 19:22
  And in a lot of ways, I think the counter argument is, you know, if you're Andreessen and
• 19:25
  you've got a Databricks, there's sort of no amount of money that feels like too much to put
• 19:28
  into that company.
• 19:29
  You're like, oh, you're only gonna get five extra money at that price.
• 19:32
  You're like, yeah.
• 19:32
  But you can put in half $1,000,000,000.
• 19:34
  Five x and half $1,000,000,000 takes you a long way towards returning Yep.
• 19:37
  A big fund.
• 19:38
  And I think that's something I appreciate about Thrive's strategy Mhmm.
• 19:42
  Which is like, yes, it's a lot of money.
• 19:43
  But if you can concentrate it into companies that will compound and will ultimately be far
• 19:48
  outlier valuable, you can put 10 to work and get 30 back.
• 19:52
  My last question here is, we're also maybe thinking about, like, the non mega funds who
• 19:58
  participate largely in this type of round dynamic.
• 20:01
  Do you think that those GPs, if they're being honest, know the difference when they're
• 20:06
  writing the check between consensus versus full conviction in the moment?
• 20:11
  I think in my brain, I mean, like, we've got a handful of deals in our portfolio that have
• 20:15
  been priced around this range, and we truly believe we felt convicted in the idea and the
• 20:20
  and the reason behind it.
• 20:21
  But I think that there are funds who are not mega funds that a 100%, they're doing only
• 20:25
  these types of deals?
• 20:26
  And do you think that they're really thinking they're truly convicted or this is the ride and
• 20:30
  the game that I wanna play on and I have a right to play in this game as much as the mega
• 20:34
  funds with less AUM?
• 20:36
  Depends on the manager.
• 20:37
  I know some people who really think this is where value is created, and these companies
• 20:41
  that are born expensive are the good ones, and they're expensive because they're good.
• 20:44
  And we only wanna be in things that are expensive because they're good, and finding
• 20:48
  things that are good and inexpensive is not something I wanna work on.
• 20:51
  Yeah.
• 20:51
  I have several friends who subscribe to that, and they are very good at investing that way.
• 20:55
  I think the other thing is on a practical basis, these deals are easy to talk about.
• 20:58
  If you go to an LP and you're like, hey.
• 21:00
  I'm raising a fund.
• 21:01
  I'm in these three hot deals, three very expensive, but deals you've heard of that
• 21:05
  Andreessen or Sequoia or Lightspeed or Index is in.
• 21:08
  At an individual security level, the LP might not know anything.
• 21:11
  But if I told a lot of the people I talked to who value venture funds, you have two choices.
• 21:15
  Someone tells you there's a company you've heard nothing about and Sequoia's in it.
• 21:18
  There's a company you've heard nothing about and Sequoia's not in it.
• 21:20
  Most people would be like, why wanna be in the company that Sequoia's in?
• 21:22
  And so the thing about fundability is fundability shows up today.
• 21:27
  Being able to say, we we are co invested with these people, this person who spun out of this
• 21:32
  research lab.
• 21:33
  Yeah.
• 21:34
  It's expensive, but look at all these other really fancy VC names that are in this deal
• 21:38
  with us.
• 21:39
  That's why you should feel good about that.
• 21:41
  Versus like, hey, this is a company you've never heard of and you will have never heard of
• 21:44
  for seven years.
• 21:45
  And then by the time you've heard about it, I've had to raise two more funds.
• 21:48
  And so I do think the irony is that the people who are being rewarded for having bet on those
• 21:53
  companies at low valuations, those are decisions that were made a decade ago that are
• 21:57
  being harvested now.
• 21:58
  And there's more of that harvesting to come.
• 22:00
  The question is fifteen years from now, will it look the same?
• 22:03
  I don't know.
• 22:03
  Well, can confirm good and inexpensive is a very hard job, so we're excited to continue to
• 22:09
  do it here.
• 22:09
  Thank you so much, Charles, for joining in.
• 22:11
  We are all out of time today.
• 22:12
  Thank you to our listeners for hopping in as well.
• 22:14
  Please like and subscribe, and we will talk with you all next week.
• 22:16
  Thank you.
• 22:17
  Bye.