20VC: The Memo: How to Raise a Venture Capital Fund (Part I) | The Core Lessons from Raising $400M Over The Last Four Years| The Biggest Mistakes VCs Make When Fundraising | How To Find and Build Relationships with New LPs

20VC: The Memo: How to Raise a Venture Capital Fund (Part I) | The Core Lessons from Raising $400M Over The Last Four Years| The Biggest Mistakes VCs Make When Fundraising | How To Find and Build Relationships with New LPs

How To Raise a Venture Capital Fund

Over the last 4 years, I have raised around $400M across different vehicles from many different types of investors. Today I am going to break down the early stages of how to raise a venture capital fund and then stay tuned for a follow-up to this where we will break down a fundraising deck for a fund, what to do, what not to do etc. But to the first element.

Your Fund Size is Your Strategy:

The most important decision you will make is the size of fund you raise. So much of your strategy and approach will change according to your fund size target (LP type, messaging, documentation, structure etc). Remember, your fund size is your strategy. If you are raising a $10M Fund, you are likely writing collaborative checks alongside a follower, if you are raising a $75M fund, you will likely be leading early-stage seed rounds. These are very different strategies and ways of investing.

MISTAKE: The single biggest mistake I see fund managers make is they go out to fundraise with too high a target fundraise. One of the most important elements in raising for a fund is creating the feeling of momentum in your raise. The more of the fund you have raised and the speed with which you have raised those funds dictate that momentum. So the smaller the fund, the easier it is to create that heat and momentum in your raise.

LESSON: Figure out your minimum viable fund size (MVFS). Do this by examining your portfolio construction. In other words, how many investments you want to make in the fund (the level of diversification) and then alongside that, the average check size you would like to invest in each company. Many people forget to discount the fees when doing this math and so the traditional fund will charge 2% fees per year and so across the life of the fund (usually 10 years), that is 20% of the fund allocated to fees.

Example:

We are raising a $10M Fund.

20% is allocated to fees for the manager and so we are left with $8M of investable capital.

A good level of diversification for an early-stage fund is 30 companies and so with this fund size, I would recommend 32 investments with an average of $250K per company. That is the $8M in invested capital. Big tip, I often see managers raising a seed fund and are only planning to make 15 investments, this is simply not enough. You have to have enough diversification in the portfolio if you are at the seed stage. No one is that good a picker. Likewise, I sometimes see 100 or even 200 investments per fund, this is the spray-and-pray approach, and although works for some, your upside is inherently capped when you run the maths on fund sizes with this many investments.

A big element to point out in this example is we have left no allocation for reserves. For those that do not know, reserves are the dollars you set aside to re-invest in existing portfolio companies. Different funds reserve different amounts, on the low end there is 0% reserves and on the high end some even have 70% of the fund reserved for follow-on rounds.

In this example, given the size of the fund being $10M with a seed focus, I would recommend we have a no-reserves policy. Any breakout companies you can take to LPs and create SPVs to concentrate further capital into the company. This is also better for you as the manager as you then have deal by deal carry on the SPVs that are not tied to the performance of the entire fund.

So now we know we know $10M is our MVFS as we want to make at least 30 investments and we want to invest at least $250K per company. Great, next step.

Set a target that is on the lower end, you can always have a hard cap that is significantly higher but you do not want the target to be too far away that LPs question whether you will be able to raise the fund at all. This is one of the biggest reasons why many do not invest in a first time fund, they are unsure whether the fund will be raised at all.

The Team:

Alongside the size of the fund, the team composition is everything, simply put, LPs like managers who have invested in the stage you are wanting to invest in moving forward. They like to see track record.

IMPORTANT: I see so many angels write checks into breakout Series B companies and then go out and try and raise a seed fund with this as their track record. Do not do this, this does not prove you are a good seed investor but merely shows you have access at the Series B. These are very different things.

With regards to track record, in the past, TVPI or paper mark-ups were enough, now there is a much greater focus on DPI (returned capital to investors). LPs want to see that you have invested before at that stage and they also want to see that the team has worked together before. You want to remove the barriers to no. If you have not worked with the partners you are raising with before, LPs will have this as a red flag, and as team risk, it is that simple.

Navigating the World of LPs (Limited Partners)

The size of the fund you are raising will massively dictate the type of LPs that will invest in your fund.

MISTAKE: You have to change your messaging and product marketing with each type of LP you are selling to. A large endowment fund will want a very different product to a Fund of Funds.

Example: If you are a large endowment, you will invest in early funds but you want the manager to show you a pathway to them, in the future, being able to take not a $10M check but a $50M check from the endowment. Whereas the Fund of Funds will likely want you to stay small with each fund. So when discussing fund plans, it is crucial to keep these different desires in mind.

If you are raising a $10M fund, you will be too small for institutional LPs and will raise from individuals and family offices. An LP will never want to be more than 20% of the LP dollars in a fund and so the size at which an institutional LP (really the smallest fund of funds) would be interested is when you raise $25M+ and they can invest $5M. Generalisation but a good rule of thumb to have.

LP Composition of Your Fund:

Speaking of one LP being 20% of the fund dollars, it is helpful to consider the LP composition you would like to have for your fund. The most important element; you want to have a diversified LP base. A diversified LP base is important in two different forms:

  1. No LP should be more than 20% of the fund at a maximum. That said you do not want to have so many investors in your fund it is unmanageable. LPs need time and attention and so it is important to keep that in mind when considering how many you raise from. Some LPs will want preferred terms or economics for coming into the first close or being one of the first investors, if you can, do not do this. It sets a precedent for what you will and will not accept and then for all subsequent investors, they will want the same terms and rights.
  2. You want to have a diversification of LP type (endowments, fund of funds, founders, GPs at funds etc). Why? In different market cycles, different LPs will be impacted and so if you only raise from one LP type, if a market turns against that LP class, then your next fund is in danger.

Example:

We will see the death of many mico-funds ($10M and below). Why? The majority raised their funds from GPs at larger funds and from public company founders. With the changing market environment, most GPs are no longer writing LP checks and most public market founders have had their net worths cut in half by the value of their company in the public market and so likewise, are no longer writing LP checks. In this case, the next funds for these funds will be in trouble as their core LP base is no longer as active as they used to be. We are seeing this today.

Prediction:

  • 50% of the micro-funds raised in the last 2 years will not raise subsequent funds.

Going back to the question of diversification, my preference and what we have at 20VC, the majority of dollars are concentrated from a small number of investors. Of a $140M fund, we have $100M invested from 5 large institutions. These are a combination of endowments, Family Offices, a High Net Worth Individual and a Fund of Funds. The remaining $40M originates from smaller institutions or individuals, for us we have over 50 making up that final $40M. For me, I really wanted to have a community around 20VC Fund and so we have over 40 unicorn founders invested personally in the fund as LPs.

Bonus Points: The best managers select their LPs to play a certain role or help with a potential weakness the manager has. For example, I was nervous I did not have good coverage of the Australian or LATAM startup market and so I was thrilled to add founders from Atlassian, Linktree, Mercado Libre, Rappi and Nubank as LPs to help in regions where I do not have such an active presence. If you can, structure your LP base to fill gaps you have in your ability.

Status Check In:

Now we know our minimum viable fund size, we know the team composition we are going out to raise with, we know the LP type that we are looking to raise money from and we know how we want our desired fund cap table to look.

Now we are ready to move to the LPs themselves.

Fill Your Restaurant with Friendlies:

As I said, the appearance of your raise having heat and momentum is important.

Mistake: The biggest mistake I see early fund managers make is they go out to large institutional investors that they do not have an existing relationship and spend 3-4 months trying to raise from them. They lose heat, they lose morale and the raise goes nowhere.

Whatever fund size you are raising, do not do this. Fill your restaurant with friendlies first. What does this mean? Go to anyone you know who would be interested in investing in your fund and lock them in to invest. Create the feeling that progress is being made and you have momentum.

BONUS POINTS: The best managers bring their LPs with them for the fundraise journey. With each large or notable investor that invests in your fund, send an email to the LPs that have already committed to let them know about this new notable investor. This will make them feel like you have momentum, they are in a winner and many will then suggest more LP names, wanting to bring in their friends.

MISTAKE: Do not set a minimum check size, some of the most helpful LPs in all of my funds have been the smallest checks. Setting a minimum check size will inhibit many of the friendlies from investing and prevent that early momentum.

The bigger the name the incoming investor has the better. You can use it for social validity when you go out to raise from people you know less well or not at all. Different names carry different weight, one mistake I see many make is they get a big name invested in their fund but it is common knowledge to everyone that this LP has done 200 or 300 fund investments, in which case, it does not carry much weight that they invested in your fund. Be mindful of this as it can show naivety if you place too much weight on a name that has invested in so many funds.

Discovery is Everything:

The world of LPs is very different to the world of venture. 99% of LPs do not tweet, write blogs or go on podcasts. Discovery is everything. When I say discovery I literally mean finding the name of the individual and the name of the organization that is right for you to meet.

This can take the form of several different ways but the most prominent for me are:

  1. The Most Powerful: Create an LP acquisition flywheel. What do I mean by this? When an LP commits to invest in your fund. Say to them, "thank you so much for your faith and support in me, now we are on the same team, what 3 other LPs do you think would be perfect for the fund?" Given they have already invested, they already believe in you and so 90% of them will come back with 3 names and make the intro. Do this with each LP that commits and you will create an LP acquisition flywheel.

Bonus Point: The top 1% of managers raising will already know which LPs are in the network of the LP that has just committed and will ask for those 3 specific intros. They will then send personalized emails to the LP that has just committed. The LP is then able to forward that email to the potential LP you want to meet. You want to minimize the friction on behalf of the introducer and so writing the forwardable email is a great way to do this.

  1. The Most Likely to Commit: LPs are like VCs. When one of their portfolio managers makes an intro and recommendation to a potential fund investment, they will place a lot more weight on it than they would have otherwise. So get your VC friends to introduce you to their LPs, it is that simple. Remember, you have to remove the friction from the introducer. So, make sure to send the email they can forward to the LP. Make this personalized and concise.

Mistake: Many VCs do not like to introduce other managers to their LPs as they view it as competition. This is moronic. If the manager asking for the intro is really good, they will raise their fund with or without your intro. If they are not good, then you can politely say it would not be a fit for your LP and move on. Do not be too protective of your LPs from other managers.

  1. The Cold Outbound: I am not going to lie cold outbound for LPs is really hard. Here is what I would suggest:

  • Pitchbook: It is expensive and many cannot afford it but if you can, it is worth it for LP discovery. They have thousands of LPs of different types on the platform all with their emails and contact details. Those are less useful as a cold email to an LP is unlikely to convert but just finding their names and the names of their organization is what is important. You can then take that to Linkedin to then find the mutual connections you have with that person and ask for a warm intro.
  • Linkedin: Many LPs have the funds that they have invested in on their Linkedin profiles with the title "Limited Partner". If they are invested in a fund that is aligned with the strategy that you are raising for, there is a strong chance they might be a fit. For example, I invest in micro-funds and have invested in Chapter One, Scribble, Rahul from Superhuman and Todd's Fund, and Cocoa Ventures, so you see this and see I like sub $25M funds with a specific angle.
  • Clearbit: Often you will know the name of the institution but not the name or position of the person within the institution that you are looking to raise from. Download a Google Chrome Plugin called Clearbit. With Clearbit you can simply insert the URL for the organization you would like to speak with and then all the people within it will appear and you can select from title and their email will be provided. Again, if you do not want to cold email, you now have their name which you can take to your community, to ask for the intro.

MISTAKE: LPs invest in lines, not dots. Especially for institutional LPs, it is rare that an institution will meet you and invest in you without an existing relationship and without having followed your work before. A mistake many make is they go to large institutions and expect them to write a check for this fund, it will likely be at best for the fund after this one or most likely the third fund. This does not mean you should not go to them with your first fund but you should not prioritize them and you should not expect them to commit. I would instead go in with the mindset of we are not going to get an investment here, so I want to leave the room understanding what they need to see me do with this first fund, to invest in the next fund. The more detailed you can get them to be the more you can hold them to account for when you come back to them for Fund II.

Example: If they say, we want to see you are able to price and lead seed rounds and we are not sure you can right now. Great. Now when you come back to them in 12 months' time, you can prioritize the fact that you have led 80% of the rounds you invested in, and their core concern there has been de-risked.

In terms of how I think about LP relationship building, I always meet 2 new LPs every week. I ensure with every quarter, I have a check-in with them and ensure they have our quarterly update. This allows them to follow your progress, learn how you like to invest, and communicate with your LPs. It also really serves to build trust. Doing this not in a fundraising process also removes the power imbalance that is inherent within a fundraise and allows a much more natural relationship to be created.

Episoder(1388)

20VC: Index's Shardul Shah on Why Market Size is a Trap | Biggest Lessons on Pricing from Leading Rounds in Wiz & Datadog | Why Benchmarks & Averages in VC are BS | How Index Makes Decisions and Why Growth & Early are the Same Investing Style

20VC: Index's Shardul Shah on Why Market Size is a Trap | Biggest Lessons on Pricing from Leading Rounds in Wiz & Datadog | Why Benchmarks & Averages in VC are BS | How Index Makes Decisions and Why Growth & Early are the Same Investing Style

Shardul Shah is a Partner at Index Ventures and one of the greatest cyber security investors of the last two decades. Among his many wins, Shardul has led rounds in Datadog, Wiz, Duo Security, Coalition and more. Shardul is also the only Partner investing at Index to have worked in every single Index office from London, to SF, to NYC to Geneva. Prior to Index, Shardul worked with Summit Partners, focusing on healthcare and internet technologies. In Today's Episode with Shardul Shah We Discuss: 1. Investing Lessons from Wiz and Datadog: Why does Shardul believe that TAM (total addressable market) is BS? Why does Shardul believe that every great deal will be expensive? How does Shardul evaluate when to double down and concentrate capital vs when to let someone else come in and lead a round in an existing company? How does Shardul think about when is the right time to sell a position in a company? 2. How the Best VCs Make Decisions: How does Shardul and Index create an environment of truth-seeking together, that is optimised for the best decision-making to take place? What are the biggest mistakes in how VCs make decisions today? Why does Shardul believe that all first meetings should be 30 mins not 60 mins? Why does Shardul believe it is so much harder to make investment decisions when partnerships are remote? What is better remote? 3. The Core Pillars of Venture: Sourcing, Selecting, Securing and Servicing: Which one does Shardul believe he is best at? What is he worst at? Does Shardul believe with the downturn we have moved into a world of selection and not just winning every new deal? Does Shardul believe that VCs provide any value? What are the biggest misnomers when it comes to "VC value add"? 4. Lessons from the Best Investors in the World: Who is the best board member that Shardul sits on a board with? What has Shardul learned from Gili Raanan and Doug Leone on being a good board member? What have been some of Shardul's biggest investing lessons from Danny Rimer? Why does Shardul hate benchmarks when it comes to investing?

16 Sep 202450min

20Product: What Facebook, Monzo and Deliveroo Do and Do Not Do To Build Great Products | How to Structure Product Teams For Success | Is Simple Always Better in Product and The Art vs Science of Product Design with Mike Hudack

20Product: What Facebook, Monzo and Deliveroo Do and Do Not Do To Build Great Products | How to Structure Product Teams For Success | Is Simple Always Better in Product and The Art vs Science of Product Design with Mike Hudack

Mike Hudack is the Co-Founder and CEO of Sling, a peer-to-peer payments app whose vision is to simplify the way the world connects financially. Previously, he held roles at Monzo Bank as Chief Product Officer, Deliveroo as Chief Product and Technology Officer, and Facebook where he led ads product and sharing product. In Today's Episode with Mike Hudack We Discuss: 1. Product: Art vs Science: What is the true art of product? What makes the great product leaders and PMs? Is simple always better in product? How do you retain product simplicity with time? When should data be used over intuition in product building? 2. Lessons from Leading Ads at Facebook: What are Mike's single biggest product lessons from building the ads product at Facebook? How did a meeting with Mark Zuckerberg discussing a product change, alter how Mike thinks about product today? What makes Zuck so special on product? What are the biggest mistakes that Facebook made when it came to the ads product? What did they not do that he wishes they had done? 3. Leading Product at Deliveroo: What I Learned: What are Mike's biggest takeaways from his time at Deliveroo on how to make consumer products? What did Deliveroo do from a product perspective that worked so well? What did he learn? What were the single biggest product mistakes that Deliveroo made? What did he learn? How fast do you know when a consumer app is working or not working? When do you go against data and follow your intuition? 4. Building the Biggest Bank in Britain with Monzo: What are Mike's biggest lessons on product building from his time at Monzo? What did Monzo not do that he wishes they had done? Why does Mike think the US is crucial for Monzo? How did Monzo change how Mike thinks about competition? What do you do when your competitor, Revolut, is outshipping you at such a speed?

13 Sep 20241h 6min

20VC: Scaling ServiceNow to $5BN in ARR | Leadership Lessons from Doug Leone, Frank Slootman and Bill McDermott | VC Value Add: Is it Real and Why the Worst VCs are "Seagull VCs"

20VC: Scaling ServiceNow to $5BN in ARR | Leadership Lessons from Doug Leone, Frank Slootman and Bill McDermott | VC Value Add: Is it Real and Why the Worst VCs are "Seagull VCs"

David Schneider is a General Partner @ Coatue and one of the great operators of the last 20 years. Prior to Coatue, David was instrumental in ServiceNow's growth to over $100B+ public market value. David led the growth of the company from $100M to $5BN in revenue. Before joining ServiceNow, David held senior positions at Data Domain, the company he joined at $0 in revenue and scaled to $1BN in revenue and an IPO and acquisition. In Today's Episode with David Schneider We Discuss: ServiceNow: Secrets to Scaling to $5BN in ARR: What are David's biggest lessons from scaling ServiceNow to $5BN ARR? What worked? What did not work? What are the most common reasons companies plateau? How did ServiceNow roll out so many different products so effectively? How did David hire and ramp 180 people in 90 days? 2. From OG Operator to Newbie Investor: What have been the single most challenging elements of making the transition to VC? What advice did David get from the biggest names on entering venture? How long did it take David to do his first deal? What advice does he give other operators entering? How does doing deals in 2024 compare to when David started doing deals in 2021? 3. VC Value: Do 90% of VCs Really Damage Companies: Does David agree that 90% of VCs actually detract value? What does David mean when he says that the worst VCs are "seagull VCs"? What are David's biggest tips to founders on how to get the most out of their board? What is enough ownership for David to really give the time needed to a company? 4. Lessons from the Greats: Doug Leone, Bill McDermott, Frank Slootman: Doug Leone: What has David learned from Doug on what it takes to be a great investor and board member? Frank Slootman: What has David learned from Bill on how to be the best leader of a mega company? Bill McDermott: What has David learned from Frank about decision-making and execution.

11 Sep 20241h 6min

20VC: Tinder Founder Sean Rad on Lessons Scaling Tinder to the Fastest Growing Consumer Social App in History | Leadership Lessons Scaling Tinder | The Future of Love, Dating and Social Media | The Secret to Your Relationship with Money and Marriage

20VC: Tinder Founder Sean Rad on Lessons Scaling Tinder to the Fastest Growing Consumer Social App in History | Leadership Lessons Scaling Tinder | The Future of Love, Dating and Social Media | The Secret to Your Relationship with Money and Marriage

Sean Rad is the Founder and former CEO of Tinder. Sean has made more romantic connections between humans than anyone in history with Tinder having matched 50BN different people. Sean is also the Founder of Rad Fund which has made over 100 investments in companies and funds. In Today's Episode with Sean Rad We Discuss: 1. Lessons Scaling Tinder to the Fastest Consumer Social App: Starting: How did the idea for Tinder come to Sean in a restaurant in LA? Scaling: What are Sean's biggest lessons for consumer apps scaling to their first 10,000 users? User Acquisition: How did a party change the entire user acquisition strategy for dinner? What did Tinder not do that Sean wishes they had done? What did Tinder do that with the benefit of hindsight, they should not have done? 2. Leadership Lessons from Tinder CEOship: Annual Product Redesign: Why does Sean believe that every consumer company should have a complete redesign of the app every year? What are the benefits? Detachment: How does Sean advise founders when it comes to detaching their happiness from the performance of the company? What works? What does not work? Common Mistakes: What are the most common mistakes that Sean sees early-stage founders make when it comes to leadership? 3. Money, Wealth and Creating a Family Office: How does Sean analyse his own relationship to money? How has it changed over time? At what stage of wealth does Sean believe you have true financial freedom? What is the single best investment Sean has made? What did he learn? What is the worst investment he has made? What did he learn? What have been the single hardest and most surprising elements of creating a family office? 4. Love, Death, Marriage: In what ways does Sean think love has changed with time? How do we deal with the loneliness pandemic? What does Sean believe are the most non-obvious but important secrets to a happy marriage? How does Sean approach and think about his own spirituality today? Why does he not fear death?

9 Sep 20241h 4min

20VC: Why VC is a Ponzi Scheme Today | Why Most VCs are Bankers | Why Big VCs Ruin Startups | Why Incentives in VC are Broken | Why American Dynamism is a Tool for VCs to Raise Money with Nick Chirls, Asylum Ventures

20VC: Why VC is a Ponzi Scheme Today | Why Most VCs are Bankers | Why Big VCs Ruin Startups | Why Incentives in VC are Broken | Why American Dynamism is a Tool for VCs to Raise Money with Nick Chirls, Asylum Ventures

Nick Chirls is the Founder of Asylum Ventures, a new venture firm dedicated to the creative act of building companies; treating founders like artists, not assets. Asylum raised $55 million to invest $1-2 million in early-stage founders practising the art of making startups. Prior to Asylum, Nick co-founded Notation Capital, one of NYC's most successful pre-seed firms. In Today's Episode with Nick Chirls We Discuss: 1. Why Venture Capital is Broken Today: Why is VC a ponzi scheme today? Why are most VCs sheep and have lost all creativity? Why are most investors today incentivised to get dollars out of the door and not to make great investments? Why are services functions within VC firms total BS? Why do no VCs provide significant enough value to a company that it is needle-moving? 2. How to Make Money in VC in 2024: What are the two ways to make money at seed in 2024? Why do founders in unloved markets care more than those in hot markets? Why will large institutions lose a ton of money investing in the large firms of today? Why does Nick believe VCs should always sell when their founders sell shares? 3. Lessons from 3xing a Fund on One Check: Why does Nick think about not purchasing preferred shares and only buying common shares? Why does Nick believe that investing in competitive markets is stupid? What does Nick believe are the conditions you must accept if you are doing a $5M on $25M seed?

6 Sep 20241h

20VC: OpenAI's Newest Board Member, Zico Colter on The Biggest Bottlenecks to the Performance of Foundation Models | The Biggest Questions and Concerns in AI Safety | How to Regulate an AI-Centric World

20VC: OpenAI's Newest Board Member, Zico Colter on The Biggest Bottlenecks to the Performance of Foundation Models | The Biggest Questions and Concerns in AI Safety | How to Regulate an AI-Centric World

Zico Colter is a Professor and the Director of the Machine Learning Department at Carnegie Mellon University. His research spans several topics in AI and machine learning, including work in AI safety and robustness, LLM security, the impact of data on models, implicit models, and more. He also serves on the Board of OpenAI, as a Chief Expert for Bosch, and as Chief Technical Advisor to Gray Swan, a startup in the AI safety space. In Today's Episode with Zico Colter We Discuss: 1. Model Performance: What are the Bottlenecks: Data: To what extent have we leveraged all available data? How can we get more value from the data that we have to improve model performance? Compute: Have we reached a stage of diminishing returns where more data does not lead to an increased level of performance? Algorithms: What are the biggest problems with current algorithms? How will they change in the next 12 months to improve model performance? 2. Sam Altman, Sequoia and Frontier Models on Data Centres: Sam Altman: Does Zico agree with Sam Altman's statement that "compute will be the currency of the future?" Where is he right? Where is he wrong? David Cahn @ Sequoia: Does Zico agree with David's statement; "we will never train a frontier model on the same data centre twice?" 3. AI Safety: What People Think They Know But Do Not: What are people not concerned about today which is a massive concern with AI? What are people concerned about which is not a true concern for the future? Does Zico share Arvind Narayanan's concern, "the biggest danger is not that people will believe what they see, it is that they will not believe what they see"? Why does Zico believe the analogy of AI to nuclear weapons is wrong and inaccurate?

4 Sep 20241h

20Growth: Uber's Expansion Playbook for Scaling from 10 Cities to $10BN in Revenue | How Uber Acquired 1M Drivers | How Uber Solved the Chicken and The Egg Problem in New Markets and What Uber Would Be Like with Travis Still There with Scott Gorlick

20Growth: Uber's Expansion Playbook for Scaling from 10 Cities to $10BN in Revenue | How Uber Acquired 1M Drivers | How Uber Solved the Chicken and The Egg Problem in New Markets and What Uber Would Be Like with Travis Still There with Scott Gorlick

Scott Gorlick was employee #99 at Uber. Over 6 years, Scott built Uber in Atlanta and helped the company scale from 10 cities to $10B in revenue. Scott is also a prolific angel investor having written early checks into Lime and Standard Cognition to name a few. In Today's Episode with Scott Gorlick We Discuss: 1. The Driver Acquisition Playbook: Scaling to 1M Drivers How did Uber acquire 1M drivers? What was the playbook? What worked? What did not work? How much of a role did driver-to-driver referral payments have in driver acquisition? What did Lyft do on the driver acquisition side that Uber should have done? What did the retention look like for drivers on a 30, 60 and 90 day period? 2. The City Expansion Playbook: What was the expansion playbook that Uber used for new cities? What worked in ramping demand in a new city? What did not work? How much of a role did promotions and discounting play? Lessons from them? Why did Uber often let Lyft launch in a new market first? What was the benefit of this? How did Scott see the maturation rate change with new markets opening? How fast did each subsequent market reach profitability? 3. Travis Kalanick and What Uber Could Have Been: How would Uber be different today if Travis was still in charge? What are the biggest mistakes that Dara has made with their M&A strategy? What are some of Scott's biggest leadership lessons from working with Travis? How did Travis create such strong followership and cult around him? What were the single biggest management mistakes made by Travis?

30 Aug 202441min

20VC: AI Scaling Myths: More Compute is not the Answer | The Core Bottlenecks in AI Today: Data, Algorithms and Compute | The Future of Models: Open vs Closed, Small vs Large with Arvind Narayanan, Professor of Computer Science @ Princeton

20VC: AI Scaling Myths: More Compute is not the Answer | The Core Bottlenecks in AI Today: Data, Algorithms and Compute | The Future of Models: Open vs Closed, Small vs Large with Arvind Narayanan, Professor of Computer Science @ Princeton

Arvind Narayanan is a professor of Computer Science at Princeton and the director of the Center for Information Technology Policy. He is a co-author of the book AI Snake Oil and a big proponent of the AI scaling myths around the importance of just adding more compute. He is also the lead author of a textbook on the computer science of cryptocurrencies which has been used in over 150 courses around the world, and an accompanying Coursera course that has had over 700,000 learners. In Today's Episode with Arvind Narayanan We Discuss: 1. Compute, Data, Algorithms: What is the Bottleneck: Why does Arvind disagree with the commonly held notion that more compute will result in an equal and continuous level of model performance improvement? Will we continue to see players move into the compute layer in the need to internalise the margin? What does that mean for Nvidia? Why does Arvind not believe that data is the bottleneck? How does Arvind analyse the future of synthetic data? Where is it useful? Where is it not? 2. The Future of Models: Does Arvind agree that this is the fastest commoditization of a technology he has seen? How does Arvind analyse the future of the model landscape? Will we see a world of few very large models or a world of many unbundled and verticalised models? Where does Arvind believe the most value will accrue in the model layer? Is it possible for smaller companies or university research institutions to even play in the model space given the intense cash needed to fund model development? 3. Education, Healthcare and Misinformation: When AI Goes Wrong: What are the single biggest dangers that AI poses to society today? To what extent does Arvind believe misinformation through generative AI is going to be a massive problem in democracies and misinformation? How does Arvind analyse AI impacting the future of education? What does he believe everyone gets wrong about AI and education? Does Arvind agree that AI will be able to put a doctor in everyone's pocket? Where does he believe this theory is weak and falls down?

28 Aug 202451min

Populært innen Business og økonomi

stopp-verden
dine-penger-pengeradet
e24-podden
rss-penger-polser-og-politikk
kommentarer-fra-aftenposten
rss-borsmorgen-okonominyhetene
lydartikler-fra-aftenposten
finansredaksjonen
rss-vass-knepp-show
livet-pa-veien-med-jan-erik-larssen
tid-er-penger-en-podcast-med-peter-warren
pengepodden-2
okonomiamatorene
morgenkaffen-med-finansavisen
utbytte
stormkast-med-valebrokk-stordalen
rss-sunn-okonomi
rss-rettssikkerhet-bak-fasaden-pa-rettsstaten-norge-en-podcast-av-sonia-loinsworth-og-foreningen-rettssikkerhet-for-alle
lederpodden
arcticpodden