Instead of an exclusive deal, Zymeworks shared its platform non-exclusively with multiple pharma giants. This multi-partner strategy validated the technology, generated capital, and built a portfolio of royalty interests before the company developed its own internal pipeline.

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.

When an experienced founder starts a new venture based on their own vision, the equity split doesn't need to be 50/50. By framing it as 'my deal,' the primary founder can retain a supermajority (e.g., 80%) while giving a technical co-founder a smaller but still meaningful stake.

Contrary to the focus on large upfront payments, a smarter partnership strategy is to negotiate for a larger share of downstream success through royalties and milestones. This can yield far greater long-term returns if the product succeeds.

The founder's partnership allowed him to build a company without shouldering the initial financial risk. This "halfsies on risk" structure meant he never had true control or ownership, ultimately capping his upside and leaving him with nothing. To get the full reward, you must take the full risk.

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.

Facing capital constraints, biotech companies must make a strategic choice. They can either dilute ownership by raising more venture capital or dilute their pipeline by partnering a secondary asset to fund their lead program. This "equity vs. assets" framework forces a clear-eyed decision on capital strategy.

Arcus navigated its capital-intensive early years by using strategic collaborations to bring in over $1 billion in largely non-dilutive funding. This approach allowed the company to reach late-stage clinical milestones and generate valuable data, bridging the gap to a point where public market investors could see tangible value.

Granting a full co-founder 50% equity is a massive, often regrettable, early decision. A better model is to bring on a 'partner' with a smaller, vested equity stake (e.g., 10%). This provides accountability and complementary skills without sacrificing majority ownership and control.