VCs often correctly identify a special founder but then pass due to external factors like competition or perceived market size. Reflecting on missing Scale AI, Benchmark concludes this is a critical error; the person is the signal that should override other concerns.
Related Insights
a16z's investment philosophy is to assess founders on how world-class they are at their core strengths. Horowitz warns it's a mistake to pass on a uniquely talented founder due to fixable weaknesses (e.g., no go-to-market plan) and an equal mistake to back a less talented founder just because they lack obvious flaws.
Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia describes a shift in their investment thesis for the AI era. They are now more likely to back young, "high-velocity" founders who "run through walls to win" over those with traditional domain expertise. Sheer speed, storytelling, and determination are becoming more critical selection criteria.
Ben Horowitz states a common VC mistake is over-indexing on a startup's weaknesses. The better investment is a team that is unequivocally the best at a single, critical thing. Being "pretty good" at everything is a red flag, as greatness in one area is what drives extraordinary outcomes.
Benchmark's successful AI investments (e.g., Sierra, Langchain) weren't the result of a top-down thematic strategy. Instead, their founder-centric approach led them to back exceptional individuals, which organically resulted in a diverse portfolio across the AI stack before it was obvious.
VCs often pass on great deals by overweighting the fear of future competition from giants like Google. The better mental model is to invest in founders with demonstrable "strength of strengths," accepting that some weaknesses are okay, rather than seeking a flawless profile.
Top VCs' biggest regrets come from passing on genuinely 'great' founders over solvable diligence issues. Mike Maples Jr. advises that when you encounter this rare trait, you should invest immediately, even if the business model is unclear.
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.
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.
Horowitz instructs his team to focus on how exceptionally good a founder is at their core competency. He warns against two common errors: passing on a world-class individual due to fixable weaknesses, and investing in a founder with no glaring flaws but no world-class strengths.
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.
