The 'classic' VC model hunts for unproven talent in niche areas. The now-dominant 'super compounder' model argues the biggest market inefficiency is underestimating the best companies. This justifies investing in obvious winners at any price, believing that outlier returns will cover the high entry cost.

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.

While an operating company must commit to a single, coherent strategy, a venture portfolio can invest in opposing models simultaneously (e.g., big vs. small models, open vs. closed source). This allows VCs to win regardless of which future unfolds.

A successful early-stage strategy involves actively maximizing specific risks—product, market, and timing—to pursue transformative ideas. Conversely, risks related to capital efficiency and team quality should be minimized. This framework pushes a firm to take big, non-obvious swings instead of settling for safer, incremental bets.

Despite constant talk of new venture capital models, firms like Index Ventures and Benchmark demonstrate that the traditional approach still reigns. Their success comes from disciplined, competent execution within a chosen strategy, not from reinventing their fundamental approach to investing.

VC outcomes aren't a bell curve; a tiny fraction of investments deliver exponential returns covering all losses. This 'power law' dynamic means VCs must hunt for massive outliers, not just 'good' companies. Thiel only invests in startups with the potential to return his whole fund.

While limited partners in venture funds often claim to seek differentiated strategies, in reality, they prefer minor deviations from established models. They want the comfort of the familiar with a slight "alpha" twist, making it difficult for managers with genuinely unconventional approaches to raise institutional capital.

Seed funds that primarily act as a supply chain for Series A investors—optimizing for quick markups rather than fundamental value—are failing. This 'factory model' pushes them into the hyper-competitive 'white hot center' of the market, where deals are priced to perfection and outlier returns are rare.

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.