The firm’s core belief is being a fund *for* founders, trusting them to run their companies without heavy operational input. This hands-off approach gives partners the bandwidth and "permission" to go deep on their own projects, leading to spinouts like Anduril and Varda.

Related Insights

Instead of building a platform team of specialists, Eclipse operates like a small special forces unit. A lean team of senior partners, all ex-operators, handles everything from thesis creation to scaling companies. This ensures founders get direct support from proven builders, not junior staff.

A16z's foundational belief is that founders, not hired "professional CEOs," should lead their companies long-term. The firm is structured as a network of specialists to provide founders with the knowledge and connections they lack, enabling them to grow into the CEO role and succeed.

To win the best pre-seed deals, investors should engage high-potential talent during their 'founder curious' phase, long before a formal fundraise. The real competition is guiding them toward conviction on their own timeline, not battling other VCs for a term sheet later.

To avoid stifling talent, Sequoia uses 'freedom within frameworks.' It provides guiding principles—shared values and a common value chain (sourcing, picking, winning)—but allows partners total autonomy in their methods. This enables diverse, authentic styles, from deep thematic work to high-volume networking, to coexist effectively.

To maintain product focus and avoid the 'raising money game,' the founders of Cues established a separate trading company. They used the profits from this successful venture to self-fund their AI startup, enabling them to build patiently without being beholden to VC timelines or expectations.

The dominant VC narrative demands founders focus on a single venture. However, successful entrepreneurs demonstrate that running multiple projects—a portfolio approach mirrored by VCs themselves—is a viable path, contrary to the "focus on one thing" dogma.

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.

Beyond financial incentives or strategic differences, a primary driver for a successful partner to spin out from an established firm can be pure ego. The desire to build something independently and prove one's own success is a powerful, albeit rarely admitted, motivation for starting a new venture.

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.

Founders Fund's perk allowing employees to co-invest personally is a clever mechanism to test true conviction. If an investor sponsoring a deal is unwilling to put their own money in, it raises a serious question about their belief in the investment's potential, forcing them to justify why it's a better allocation for LPs than their own capital.