Top growth investors deliberately allocate more of their diligence effort to understanding and underwriting massive upside scenarios (10x+ returns) rather than concentrating on mitigating potential downside. The power-law nature of venture returns makes this a rational focus for generating exceptional performance.

Successful startups tap into organic customer needs that already exist—a 'pull' from the market. In contrast, 'conjuring demand' involves a founder trying to convince a market of a new worldview without prior evidence. This is a much harder and less reliable path to building a business.

Applying the "weird if it didn't work" framework to fundraising means shifting the narrative. Your goal is to construct a story where the market opportunity is so massive and your team's approach is so compelling that an investor's decision *not* to participate would feel like an obvious miss.

Investors like Stacy Brown-Philpot and Aileen Lee now expect founders to demonstrate a clear, rapid path to massive scale early on. The old assumption that the next funding round would solve for scalability is gone; proof is required upfront.

This reframes the fundamental goal of a startup away from a supply-side focus (building) to a demand-side focus (discovery). The market's unmet need is the force that pulls a company and its product into existence, not the other way around.

For deep tech startups aiming for commercialization, validating market pull isn't a downstream activity—it's a prerequisite. Spending years in a lab without first identifying a specific customer group and the critical goal they are blocked from achieving is an enormous, avoidable risk.

A core investment framework is to distinguish between 'pull' companies, where the market organically and virally demands the product, and 'push' companies that have to force their solution onto the market. The former indicates stronger product-market fit and a higher potential for efficient, scalable growth.

Using a child's toy analogy, demand is a pre-existing hole (e.g., a star shape) and your product is the block. Founders fail when they build a block and then search for a hole it fits. The real job is to first deeply understand the shape of the hole, then craft a block that fits it perfectly.

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.