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.
Related Insights
Focusing only on trendy sectors leads to intense competition where the vast majority of startups fail. True opportunity lies in contrarian ideas that others overlook or dismiss, as these markets have fewer competitors.
The worst feeling for an investor is not missing a successful deal they didn't understand, but investing against their own judgment in a company that ultimately fails. This emotional cost of violating one's own conviction outweighs the FOMO of passing on a hot deal.
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.
Startups often fail by making a slightly better version of an incumbent's product. This is a losing strategy because the incumbent can easily adapt. The key is to build something so fundamentally different in structure that competitors have a very hard time copying it, ensuring a durable advantage.
![Palmer Luckey - Inventing the Future of Defense - [Invest Like the Best, CLASSICS] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/f7c9aa8e-cb8d-11f0-828e-0b281809c10a/image/cc07f91ec47f95abbde771a4956b37b7.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
A common mistake in venture capital is investing too early based on founder pedigree or gut feel, which is akin to 'shooting in the dark'. A more disciplined private equity approach waits for companies to establish repeatable, business-driven key performance metrics before committing capital, reducing portfolio variance.
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.
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.
As the market leader, OpenAI has become risk-averse to avoid media backlash. This has “damaged the product,” making it overly cautious and less useful. Meanwhile, challengers like Google have adopted a risk-taking posture, allowing them to innovate faster. This shows how a defensive mindset can cede ground to hungrier competitors.
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.
