VCs often pass on great deals by overweighting the fear of future competition from giants like Google. The better mental model is to invest in founders with demonstrable "strength of strengths," accepting that some weaknesses are okay, rather than seeking a flawless profile.
Related Insights
Over-diligencing for well-rounded perfection is a mistake. The best companies rarely excel in every area initially. Instead, investors should identify the one "spike"—the single dimension where the company is 5-10x better than anyone else—as this is the true indicator of outlier potential, rather than looking for a company that is A+ across the board.
Undiversified founders can't afford a VC's portfolio mindset. Instead of pursuing ideas that *could* work, they must adopt strategies that would be *weird if they didn't work*. This shifts focus from optimizing for a chance of success to minimizing the chance of absolute failure.
Founders with deep market fit must trust their unique intuition over persuasive, but generic, VC advice. Following the standard playbook leads to cookie-cutter companies, while leaning into the 'weird' things that make your business different is what creates a unique, defensible moat.
The hardest transition from entrepreneur to investor is curbing the instinct to solve problems and imagine "what could be." The best venture deals aren't about fixing a company but finding teams already on a trajectory to succeed, then helping change the slope of that success line on the margin.
VCs often pass on great companies by over-indexing on the theoretical threat of future competition from incumbents like Google. Andreessen Horowitz's post-mortems show this is a common mistake. The better approach is to invest in a founder's unique, "spiking strengths" rather than focusing on a lack of hypothetical future threats.
While ignoring competitors is naive, constantly reacting to their every move is a crutch for founders who lack a strong, opinionated vision for their own product. Healthy balance involves strategic awareness without sacrificing your own roadmap.
AI drastically accelerates the ability of incumbents and competitors to clone new products, making early traction and features less defensible. For seed investors, this means the traditional "first-mover advantage" is fragile, shifting the investment thesis heavily towards the quality and adaptability of the founding team.
A truly exceptional founder is a talent magnet who will relentlessly iterate until they find a winning model. Rejecting a partnership based on a weak initial idea is a mistake; the founder's talent is the real asset. They will likely pivot to a much bigger opportunity.
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.
Venture capital should focus on what a founder does exceptionally well, rather than penalizing them for past failures or weaknesses. Ben Horowitz uses the Adam Neumann example to illustrate their principle: judge people by their spectacular talents (like building the WeWork brand) and help them manage their flaws, which is a more effective strategy than seeking perfectly flawless individuals.
