Jeff Weiner

Want a front-row seat to the frontier of tech? We’ve got the role (or two) for you! We’re expanding our frontier-tech team at Blackbird by hiring a Frontier Tech Investments Associate and Foundry Fellows! Got questions? We've got answers... 1️⃣ What are the roles? 🧪 Associate = a full-time VC investment gig in our Blackbird Investments team, working directly with me. We’re looking for someone with a science and/or engineering background and more curiosity than they can handle. You’ll grow your own investment brand and practice, support our portfolio founders, and will help build Foundry, our early-stage frontier-tech accelerator. ✨ Foundry Fellow = a casual/contract gig in our Blackbird Investments team, ~15h per week for 3 months. The Fellowship is ideal for PhD students and ECRs who want to learn more about startups and VC. You’ll go deep on emerging areas relevant to your expertise (or curiosity!), get a front-row seat to groundbreaking companies in those areas, build out your non-academic network, and develop a solid writing practice. 2️⃣ Why are you hiring? We love frontier tech, and we’re ready to grow our team. 3️⃣ Wow, it’s so great that you’re starting to look at deep tech! Look, we get it: we don’t make a lot of noise about our frontier tech investing. Buuuut we’ve been deep-tech investors since we backed Tim Kentley-Klay to found Zoox back in 2014—we’ve been on incredible journeys with PsiQuantum (building the world's first utility-scale quantum computer right here in Australia!), Inventia Life Science (transforming drug discovery with high-fidelity cell models), Remedy Robotics (surgical robots for remote endovascular procedures), Opto Biosystems (minimally-invasive neural implants to treat cancer), and more. We believe that frontier technologies, and great frontier-tech investing, will be part of the solutions to the greatest problems humanity faces today. 4️⃣ When do applications close? May 31st at 11:59pm AEST. 5️⃣ I have more questions! I’m sure you do! Clare Birch and I are hosting an AMA to answer any and all questions about these roles. Want to know what a week in the life of our team looks like? What’s keeping us up at night? What our ideal candidate looks like? Come along and find out - registration link in the comments 👇 Apply for these roles: Associate - https://lnkd.in/gCfj4EUJ Foundry Fellowships - https://lnkd.in/gj6ATZVZ If you know anyone that we should meet, send me their details! Cameron Elise Ben Andrew Robin Joseph Adelaide James Olivia Lucinda Raghav Jesse Christie Mohamed Tom Amee Pablo Haya Loong Hon Joshua Benjamin Megan Harry Denzil Matthew Diana Daniel Tom Deanna Justin Amar Lilly Stone Thomas

113

4 Comments

I’m excited to publicly share something that has been in the works for a few months at the 9point8 Collective. We’ve launched our Virtual Studio! This is a program for early-stage companies that provides the coaching, development and venture-building tools they need to find traction and scale. The program is modeled off of the venture-building processes found inside #VentureStudios, which have delivered 2X IRR and exit 45% faster than traditional #VC-backed #startups over the last 10 years. Some of the secret sauce to this is that studios have found a way to validate strategies early on, de-risk execution, preserve and extend limited runway, and create efficient business models very fast. We at 9point8 are seasoned studio builders and are on a mission to bring this value to founding teams as they navigate their startup journeys. What we’ve done with the Virtual Studio is distill these key processes and techniques, add in our own expertise and best practices, and package them into a program which meets start-ups where they are. We are now opening up our Summer 2024 Cohort, slated to begin in July. Space is limited, so I’m sharing the opportunity with my network before we fill the cohort. Here are the details: -It’s a 3-month program which takes the founder through the key phases of venture-building and de-risking (refining target market, product-market fit, economics and financials, planning, and fundraising). -Founders can expect to achieve greater focus, improved operations and increased marketability to customers and investors. -The end results include collaboratively-drafted operational plans, commercial / investment pitch decks, and elevated management practices within the founding team. These draft off frameworks from 9point8's proprietary venture-building process: Targets Over Everything. -It’s built for founders facing (or approaching) a critical inflection point, where fresh perspectives and strategic management levers are critical. These might include fundraising preparation, new product launch, market expansion, and post-MVP scaling efforts. Why did we build this program? Because building a new company is really hard. 90(!) percent of startups fail, and even moderate risk reduction can create a huge lift to survival rate and eventual returns. The studio model is proven to drive greater venture success; our virtual program is extending that success to more and more teams. The program is highly collaborative and hands-on, so we only take on a few companies at a time. This is a great opportunity for founders who are looking to level-up their abilities when it comes to unlocking traction, growth, and an express lane to superior returns. If interested, please reach out immediately as we expect the program to be fully enrolled very soon! Blair Merlino Evan Allen Neal Ghosh

55

17 Comments

Big announcement below! 👇 Let's talk about the current state of GP-LP affairs: 🤯Emerging VC managers have absolutely exploded over the past 5 years. 📈 At the same time, more and more data has surfaced that shows that emerging VC firms tend to outperform larger, established firms. 🤔 All of this has made it intriguing but tough for LPs to know where to direct their attention. 🛍 GPs frequently meet LPs at conferences who are window shopping but not committed to the asset class or emerging managers. 🧾 And both crews get overwhelmed by transactional convos. So Sydney Paige Thomas and I created Abundance. Abundance is a private, nomination-based retreat for active LPs and top emerging GPs to form new experiences together and build lasting relationships. Why Abundance? Abundance is knowing that there is more than enough for more than one to succeed. And a single win within a community is a win for the community itself. The journey of an emerging VC manager from 1st close to final close or Fund 1 to Fund 2 is (1) communal and (2) requires an abundant mindset. LPs look for structure and confidence to feel comfortable investing in early VC firms. Yet many of the feeds we scroll and conferences we attend reinforce inherent power dynamics and transactional thinking, which allows scarcity mindset to creep in for emerging GPs. Some of the best events I’ve attended have been intentionally non-transactional, e.g. Camp Hustle, Recast Summit, and other GPs’ AGMs. The fundraising success stories we see usually involve a community (usually of other GPs & LPs) coming together to support and open doors for the emerging GP. We designed Abundance to be an immersive gathering that fosters these connections. Starting tonight, ~100 GPs and LPs are descending upon Seattle for the inaugural Abundance retreat. This has been under wraps for months and I can’t wait to see it come to life! Thanks in advance to our awesome sponsors who were the earliest believers in this vision: Sydecar, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gunderson Dettmer, & Zelda Ventures. And shoutout to my dad Ed Illig for logo design & Halle Kaplan-Allen being the first sponsor to say yes 🤩 Presented by The Council Capital & Symphonic Capital.

131

33 Comments

I recently sat down with a group of Forum Ventures founders about to go out to fundraise and the topic of SAFE rounds came up. The context focused on the pros/cons of raising a priced vs a SAFE round and the conversation notably shifted toward the dilution implications of a SAFE round. Founders are keenly aware of the top line dilution of any funding round - ie selling 20% of their startup for $3M at a $15M cap - but very few fully grasp the implications of doing a SAFE round vs a priced round. The universal standard for institutional VC investors is a post money SAFE. This document essentially outlines ownership that an investor will have in a startup just prior to the execution of a priced round. Most importantly though, it is structured so that an investor in that SAFE will not be diluted by subsequent SAFE's that are issued. This is where founder education around the implications of this structure are not fully appreciated. In a situation where a founder continues to stack subsequent SAFEs, they don't actually convert until the first priced round and the net dilution they are taking is actually more than they realize. Here is a practical example - take a situation where a founder has already sold 15% of their business on a post money SAFE in a pre-seed round, and is now choosing to sell another 20% in a seed round. If the founder opts to raise this money on SAFEs, the dilution of that additional 20% will come entirely from common equity holders- meaning they will now own 65%. If SAFE holders were also diluted by that round, as they would be in a priced round, the founder would own 68%. This dynamic becomes more dramatic the more capital a founder raises on SAFEs. Note - this is a high level example and does not include an option pool carve out or other round nuances. Almost universally, when a founder raises their first priced round, there is some degree of sticker shock at the outright dilution on their cap table, particularly when options pools are factored in. This pain is even more acute when a founder has raised a fair amount of capital on SAFEs along the way. There are certainly benefits to raising SAFE round, mainly cash in hand 6-8 weeks faster and not having to decide on board seats too early, but I encourage all of our founders to run through cap table modeling and correctly account for the implications of SAFE rounds before they make fundraising decisions.

55

1 Comment

Insightful breakdown from my great Partner Omri Amirav-Drory on the simple factors that really separate the top 1% of investors from the rest, and how more operators should become investors! https://lnkd.in/gEiZdT2h

16

3 Comments

💰 Women-Led VC Funds: Navigating 2024 Fundraising Landscape 💰 According to Venture Capital Journal, despite a strong start, women-led VC funds are feeling the impact of the industry-wide fundraising slowdown. As of November 30, 2024, women-led VC funds have raised $2.54 billion, which represents a 25% decrease from 2023's total of $3.43 billion. In comparison, global venture fundraising is down 13% YoY. While the numbers reflect challenges, there's still potential for growth: • Several funds typically file updates in December • These late submissions could help narrow the gap Let's continue supporting diversity in VC and monitor these trends as we approach year-end. #VentureCapital #WomenInVC #FundingTrends2024 La Creme de la STEM ™ - female founders support system Noshin Ahmed Lori Rodriguez Emilie Vallauri Craig Zapatka

29

1 Comment

Check out my recent post on why President Trump is the forcing function for us to solve the “Missing Middle” and catch the industrial Tsunami of onshoring coming to the US!

84

9 Comments

I'm watching Slow Ventures closely as one of the most innovative funds out there. This podcast with Slow Ventures Principal Yoni Rechtman offers a refreshing take on scaling B2B software through #GrowthBuyouts centered around Metropolis Technologies case study and super interesting overview of Teamshares Rollup strategy, both Slow portfolio company. Growth Buyouts, specifically, flip the traditional SaaS playbook on its head. Instead of burning capital on customer acquisition, this approach suggests building software and then essentially "buying customers" - making a strong case for why the future of scalable business might look more like PE than traditional SaaS. This is a particularly relevant perspective for founders struggling with CAC in traditional software distribution. Also, I really believe #PE and M&A are very key elements in the transformation of most of asset heavy industries.

4

1 Comment

At Forum we look at thousands of deals each year across our Accelerator and Pre-Seed funds but only end up investing in a little over 1% of those startups.  As an early stage VC, I am in the business of saying no to nearly every startup I meet, and while there is nuanced rationale for many of the startups I pass on, a vast majority of businesses that don’t meet the qualification to get funded typically fall into one of two buckets. ▪ First time founders have a tendency to go out to market too early to raise pre-seed capital ▪   I’m sure most founders have heard some iteration of this from VCs that ultimately pass on their business.  In some cases it's a blanket excuse covering up for other pass reasons- perhaps a VC doesn’t believe in a team or isn’t bullish on the market opportunity - but in many cases founders simply haven't proven enough to the market to warrant an investment. I meet many teams with an articulate vision for the product that they want to build, but they either haven't performed enough customer discovery to prove demand for their initial wedge product, or need to raise pre-seed capital to build out an MVP.  In those cases, pre-seed investors are unwilling to underwrite those risks.  To be default fundable, teams need to be able to keep costs low, perform extensive customer discovery, and ship some version of an early product - pilots and early paid customers are key. A huge piece of this is having founding engineering talent on the team. ▪Not every startup is a venture opportunity ▪ By definition, a venture backed business is solving a problem within a market opportunity so massive and so desperately needed, that its growth rate is off the charts.   It spreads like a weed, absorbing almost unlimited amounts of capital to fulfill demand within its customer base.   Each year there are maybe 20 companies launched that ultimately have venture scale outcomes. The bar to reach this rarified air is unfathomably high and the reality is the vast majority of founders simply aren’t building for opportunities that have the potential to be one of these generational companies. Many startup founders view VC as the only viable option for capitalizing their business, but not every great business is a venture business, and most successful founders never take VC dollars.  In order to reach an IPO/acquisition large enough to generate venture returns, a startup needs a credible path to $100s of millions in revenue. This is the standard by which early stage opportunities are evaluated. The flip side to this, and I share this feedback often with founders I meet that are building interesting business in non venture markets, if you are able to scale to $10- $20M in revenue that can be a massively successful outcome for a founder.  There are investors who focus on these type outcomes, namely lower middle market PE shops, and the typical path to those deals is a bootstrapped business or a friends/family capital raise.

97

13 Comments

Team San Diego! I though you may find this as surprising as I did...we are not alone. Read this quick article from Jon Prentice's (Silicon Valley Bank) interview with with James Newell (Voyager Capital), published in GeekWire on Seattle's innovation ecosystem....they lament the SAME issues as we do in San Diego: * Lack of angel investors, (Especially, it calls out, given the local giant tech co's) * "We need low-conviction check writers." * Lack of "cachet associated with being an angel investor" - We have similar efforts (as described in the article) to drum up angel activity: NuFund Venture Group and, Interlock Capital (read the article and you'll see why the Interlock effort is tops as relates to "paying back into the ecosystem") Connect.org strives to 'connect' innovative companies with investors of all types (angel, VC, PE...) - just see "Innovation Day". Their Springboard program provides another great way for experienced entrepreneurs to give back through mentorship...as for the companies going through Springboard: "Ask for advice, and you often get $$" Your thoughts on the article or San Diego innovation ecosystem? https://lnkd.in/gfwq6mfq

61

3 Comments

I'm building my second startup. Why? I had a panic attack at my first. I spent a few years and so much of my own money figuring out how to learn the skills to come down from high stress situations, clear my head, stay happy, and (as a result) make great decisions. It's a journey every busy human goes through. After building those skills (an ever evolving journey), I have built a world-class team to help me bring an everyday solution to busy women: smart Moodrings (Moodring Tech). I took the Founder Mental Health Pledge because I know, first hand, what needs to be done on the individual's level to care for themself. It's not affordable and it's time consuming. We have to test solutions for ourselves inch by inch and we have to build solutions to make it easier and, even, feasible to care for ourselves. Join me...

6

#thisisnotadvice Day 384 Today's question: “What is the best way to give feedback?” Michelle Volberg is the founder and CEO of Twill, a venture backed technology platform that makes hiring easier by allowing talent to recommend their peers & friends for open roles. Previously, Michelle founded and ran a nationally recognized executive search firm recruiting talent for startups and public companies. She started her career in sales working at The Daily Beast, Digitas, NBC, etc. We're here on #thisisnotadvice to answer all your questions about how to thrive at work. If you have any questions you want us to answer next time, drop us a comment below or on X (formerly known as Twitter). For more, check out our community-edited, comprehensive reference guide on how to work: www.thisisnotadvice.work.

24

3 Comments

I'll be co-hosting a Cap Table Management Workshop with Fidelity Investments on Tuesday, 11/19! This will be part of a series of Startup Workshops that help founders with practical tips and actionable learnings. If you are a founder looking to raise future rounds of funding, this workshop is for you. Learn how to create, manage, and scale your cap table! https://lu.ma/vp0tzwtm

51

2 Comments

Here’s a question investors are often asked: When evaluating early stage companies, how much time do you spend on due diligence around future exits? It’s not surprising we hear this question a lot. Also not surprising: it’s got a wide range of answers depending on the firm. Some don’t spend much time here at all. Others make it a point to put meaningful time in as part of their process. Our current thinking: take the time to do the work on public market comps. At Alpaca VC, we spend significant time understanding how public market investors will  realistically value a business based on margin profile, product, business model & TAM. In short, we want to know: how will this company be valued at scale when we get taken out? Yes, we can acknowledge that the journey toward exit is a windy road and that there may be pivots along the way, but there are still public market companies that have a business model similar to the early stage company you're evaluating. And you can always look at gross profit multiples if you think the margin profile will change over time. So we still do the work on the comps. Quantitative metrics we look at when making the comparison to public market comps include EBITDA multiple, revenue multiple, Gross Profit multiple or all of the above. As part of this process, it’s also important to factor in the public market company’s year-over-year revenue growth as this will also significantly impact the multiple it trades at. Simple example: if you have two public market companies with similar business models and similar margin profiles, but one's growing 100% year over year, and one's growing 50% year over year, then obviously the DCF (discounted cash flow) analysis is going to spit out a very different valuation for the one that's growing faster. Why this matters: When you take all of that information into account as you evaluate an early stage business, you can begin to create a realistic picture of how this company will be valued in the public markets at exit - or how an acquirer will value the company for an acquisition. Strategic acquirers may, of course, pay a premium, but we won’t underwrite for that. This allows us, for example, to form conviction around valuation based on revenue and gross profit predictions. If we think they can do $100M of revenue five years from now, we use this diligence process to form a thesis about whether the characteristics above (product, margin, business model, etc.) will cause the company to be valued at $200M vs. $500M vs. $1B at exit. Curious how other early stage investors think about underwriting an exit and how much time they’re spending on public market comps even though these companies are in their infancy.

39

3 Comments

How does an institutional LP decide which GPs to back? UTIMCO alum (and now partner at Foundry) Lindel Eakman opened up about how he picks on Samir Kaji's Venture Unlocked podcast 👇 (episode linked in comments) 🎣 "Would you trust them with your children?" Questions like this one tend to elicit genuine reactions and a real sense of a GP’s character and capabilities. Non-answers or silence in response to a pointed question like this one can be telling. 🤨 "Who fires who?" Questions like this help him evaluate governance and conflict resolution dynamics and the overall stability of the partnership. 1️⃣ Unlike some LPs, Lindel is very open to backing solo GPs. One of the reasons being that partnership risk -- which is one of the biggest when investing in VC funds -- is by definition, eliminated. 👍🏻 Lindel shies away from backing investors who may have potential to be top performers but are divisive or unpleasant to work with. Life is too short! Follow me - John Gannon - to learn more about the ins and outs of the VC market from all 3 sides of the table.

7

1 Comment

An interesting article below, that demonstrates out how San Diego is punching above its weight.  And how Connect's strategy and execution over time, contintues to be central to that success. The article describes the current state of the market in Seattle.  (And i love Seattle.) It's a market that we tend to track with relative to venture fundings.  They used to kick our butts, we outraised them each of the last three years.  This despite the fact they have 3x as many funds there, and 9x the amount of resident capital there. (per pitchbook) Some key takeaways:  * They continue to compare themselves to SIlicon Valley. Instead, we leverage our proximity. *They whine there's not enough local investors (see note above - they have more than us). We bring over 200 VCs to SD annually! * They say founders are not connected with one another. We bring CEOs together regularly, in a variety of ways - private dinners and through our Springboard program. * They say they need to elevate their image on a national & international stage. Why we created and continue to build Five.Ten.Thirty (aka Inno Day).  * And the last paragraph - they need to concentrate on making their region a great place to live. Our mantra: "It's about Better, not Bigger." (See XEO, TL Fund). THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT. WE ARE ON A MISSION TOGETHER!!!  (Comments, whining, suggestions on SD always welcome.) https://lnkd.in/g6Rq_f2Y

109

10 Comments

We have spent too much time and money on education interventions that don’t work. Despite hundreds of new edtech companies and billions of private and public funds flowing in each year, our educators and students remain sorely underserved. With budgets tightening and imminent federal policy changes, there is simply too much at stake to continue supporting companies and policies that don’t make a tangible difference. That’s why, at Learn Capital, I’ve helped develop the Learning Impact Index (LII): a robust way to measure the impact of education interventions and channel resources accordingly. The LII provides a standardized framework to translate company data into clear outcomes– like cost savings or learner lifetime earning increases as a result of interventions. I’m hopeful that the LII will serve not just as an outcomes ROI tool, but as an accountability mechanism for key education decision-makers to deliver on our mission and be relentless in our service to learners and educators alike. This week, I presented the LII at The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity conference panel on Progress in Education Reform. If you’re curious about how the LII works in specific contexts and the kinds of impact it can measure, check out our joint white paper here: https://lnkd.in/d2huB2n6 I’ve also shared more about the LII in our newsletter, Venture to Learn. Would love for you to check it out and subscribe! https://lnkd.in/dgRiSNkR Thank you to Matthew Barry Charles Miele and Dan Lips for the amazing collaboration here!

81

15 Comments