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.
Related Insights
After realizing their initial idea was wrong, the founder tried to return $200K to angel investors. The investors refused, stating their investment was in the founders, not the specific idea. They insisted the team take the money and pivot, demonstrating that early-stage bets are often on people's potential to find a solution.
The ideal founder archetype starts with deep technical expertise and product sense. They then develop exceptional business and commercial acumen over time, a rarer and more powerful combination than a non-technical founder learning the product.
![David George - Building a16z Growth, Investing Across the AI Stack, and Why Markets Misprice Growth - [Invest Like the Best, EP.450] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/8da7dbd8-ceeb-11f0-941c-ef83bcdd4c9f/image/d44107bc94719f78fbe91befb141073e.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
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.
An investor's best career P&L winners are not immediate yeses. They often involve an initial pass by either the investor or the company. This shows that timing and building relationships over multiple rounds can be more crucial than a single early-stage decision, as a 'missed round' isn't a 'missed company'.
When evaluating investments, Danny Meyer prioritizes leadership quality over the initial concept. He believes a strong leader can pivot and improve a mediocre idea, whereas even a brilliant concept is doomed to fail under poor leadership. This highlights the primacy of execution over ideation for investors.
Since startups lack infinite time and money, an investor's key diligence question is whether the team can learn and iterate fast enough to find a valuable solution before resources run out. This 'learning velocity' is more important than initial traction or a perfect starting plan.
While assessed during diligence, the true caliber of a founder—their passion, authenticity, and ability to "run through walls"—becomes starkly clear after the deal closes. This distinction is not subtle; the impact of a truly exceptional founder versus an average one is immediately evident in the business's trajectory.
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.
