Contrary to conventional wisdom, deep sector expertise can be a liability in venture capital. VC firm Felicis found that none of its 53 unicorn investments were led by an expert in that specific sector. Experts can be anchored to orthodox thinking, while generalists are better able to recognize and back disruptive, first-principles approaches.
Related Insights
The firm's thesis focuses on a rare founder type: a technical expert who also deeply understands how new technologies shift human behavior. This avoids the common pitfall of building technology in search of a problem, leading to products with innate market pull.
Venture capitalists thrive by adopting one of two distinct personas: the "in the flow" consensus-driver focused on speed and connections, or the "out of the flow" contrarian focused on deep, isolated work. Attempting to straddle both paths leads to failure.
The most successful venture investors share two key traits: they originate investments from a first-principles or contrarian standpoint, and they possess the conviction to concentrate significant capital into their winning portfolio companies as they emerge.
Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia describes a shift in their investment thesis for the AI era. They are now more likely to back young, "high-velocity" founders who "run through walls to win" over those with traditional domain expertise. Sheer speed, storytelling, and determination are becoming more critical selection criteria.
While domain experts are great at creating incremental improvements, true exponential disruption often comes from founders outside an industry. Their fresh perspective allows them to challenge core assumptions and apply learnings from other fields.
Resist the common trend of chasing popular deals. Instead, invest years in deeply understanding a specific, narrow sector. This specialized expertise allows you to make smarter investment decisions, add unique value to companies, and potentially secure better deal pricing when opportunities eventually arise.
Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.
Unlike operating companies that seek consistency, VC firms hunt for outliers. This requires a 'stewardship' model that empowers outlier talent with autonomy. A traditional, top-down CEO model that enforces uniformity would stifle the very contrarian thinking necessary for venture success. The job is to enable, not manage.
Strict investment theses (e.g., "only second-time founders") are merely guidelines. The high volume of meetings required in venture capital provides the essential context and pattern recognition needed to identify exceptional outliers that defy rigid heuristics.
When evaluating revolutionary ideas, traditional Total Addressable Market (TAM) analysis is useless. VCs should instead bet on founders with a "world-bending vision" capable of inducing a new market, not just capturing an existing one. Have the humility to admit you can't predict market size and instead back the visionary founder.
