Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Colin Anderson (former CFO, Palantir) on forward-deployed engineering; when it works and when it doesn’t. “The FD model is great in certain markets, terrible in others… you’ve got to be solving a hard enough problem.” “A world-class engineer plus their equity dilution is an expensive check. You have to...

84,418 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Lightspeed's Bucky Moore says the real opportunity in the AI app layer is in large industries far enough afield from where the model providers are today — and where the context engineering to get customer data into the model is extremely nuanced and messy. "I think this is kind of the elephant in the room right now — whether post-training open-source models combined with the unique user feedback you get from being an application provider is defensible enough." "That is going to be an inevitable challenge for any of these industries that hit a maturation point of AI adoption, like legal and software engineering have." "But on the other hand, there are some industries where they're very large, they're far enough afield from where the model providers are today — and probably will continue to be — and the context engineering to actually get the customer data into the model is just so messy. It requires going across different business functions, it requires a lot of hands-on forward-deployed engineering." "Those are the kind of companies that we get really excited about. Because I think being really good at that is not only defensible, but it also allows you to generate a feedback loop with your customers, where you hear a lot of their secrets. And those secrets allow you to feed that back into how you make your product better at the expense of anyone else playing in the space. Because if you're serving the customer, they're only serving you those secrets." "I think Palantir is a good example of this in the pre-AI era, and I think we're going to see many companies ascend in that same way."

TBPN

46,746 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

JUST IN: Chamath Palihapitiya makes a big claim that Warren Buffett’s insane pre 2000 returns may have benefited from access to information asymmetry not available to the public Here's what he had to say: "In 2000, we introduced the law called Reg FD. And what was the point of Reg FD? It was basically that if you're a CFO, you cannot talk to an individual stock manager and tell him something that you then don't tell everybody else. Essentially inside information. That used to be not illegal. I won't say that it was legal. I would just say that used to be not illegal. You call your CFO buddy, he says, "hey, how you doing?" He goes, man, "Quarter was a blockbuster." You would go and buy the stock. And starting in the 2000s, it became illegal. And there used to be these networks of information arbitrage that took advantage of this. Now, this is an example of Warren Buffett's returns, pre and post Reg FD. Now, what do you see? His returns were double the market returns when this kind of information sharing was legal. And the minute that it became illegal and you had to basically act on the same edge as everybody else, his returns went to the market return. He generated zero alpha. In fact, he probably on the margins lost a little bit. So this is the single best investor in the world. This is what happens when you have information symmetry. So it's just meant to explain that markets when there's asymmetry. Billions and billions of dollars will be made in asymmetry. The prediction markets today, unless they are regulated out of existence or shut down, will look like the stock market pre-Reg FD."

Triple Net Investor

1,307,702 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Q: Does my startup need a business plan? In this clip from the Acquired podcast, NVIDIA founder & CEO Jensen Huang shares that he had no idea how to write a business plan when he first started the company. However, he believes business plans can be useful for teasing out important ideas before making the leap: “I think that the art of writing a business plan ought to be much, much shorter. It should force you to concisely answer: What is the problem you’re trying to solve? What is the unmet need you believe will emerge? And what is it that you’re going to do that is sufficiently hard that when everybody else finds out it’s a good idea, they’re not going to swarm it and make you obsolete?” Marc Andreessen echoes similar points in a separate interview: “The process of planning is very valuable for forcing you to think hard about what you’re doing, but the actual plan that results from it is probably useless. In particular, now that we’re VCs, we’re evaluating pitches and when people come in, we want to hear their plan and we want to hear it in some detail because we want to see that they can think about the entire thing end-to-end. And if their initial plan doesn’t make sense, then obviously there’s an issue because they’re not quite capable of fully thinking this through. But when you get somebody who comes in and they present you the perfect plan and everything is fully integrated and makes sense, all you know from that is that they can come up with a good plan—which is good! But the odds that will be the plan they succeed on is still very small.” In a Twitter thread last year, Paul Graham wrote: “I have never read a business plan or a balance sheet… The reason I don’t care about business plans is that I can learn more from 5 minutes of interrogating the founders than from 10 pages of fluff they’ve written.” The takeaway here is that plans are valuable but you probably shouldn’t spend six months writing some long document with extensive financial forecasts before getting started. Instead, concisely define the problem you’re trying to solve—ideally this is a problem you’ve experienced personally or have some connection to. Talk to potential customers to validate your core assumptions—is this problem even real or worth solving? And think hard about what makes you uniquely qualified to work on this problem and what your competitive advantage might be versus other entrepreneurs in your space. This is your business plan. Write it down if you need to—writing can be a good forcing function for clear thinking—but you don’t need an extensive, formal document with forecasts. The plan will probably change before the ink is dry. Your time will be better spent shipping a quick MVP to see if you can actually solve this problem for just one person. Once you have your first customers of any kind, you have a startup.

Michael McGuiness

83,436 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Sanders: What we have here, and it’s a real issue, is that if you’re progressive, you can go out there and give a great speech, fine. You’re saying all the right things. You’re right on the issues. Great. Can you run a government? Can you be a good mayor? Can you be a good governor? All right. And what Mamdani is doing is showing that you can have a democratic socialist, progressive ideology and run a city. You know what? New York City had really serious snowstorms. It meant that people couldn’t get to work, kids couldn’t get to school, ambulances couldn’t get people to the hospital. You know what he did? He got the bloody snow off the ground and did a great job on that. People in New York City desperately need childcare, as they do in Vermont, as they do all over the country. He is now instituting free childcare for the people of New York City. That is really good. Working-class people need to buy affordable, decent-quality food for their kids. He’s starting to put grocery stores—municipally funded grocery stores—in low-income and working-class areas. That’s good. So the point is, we have got to have progressives who are not only right on the issues—and I speak as somebody who was a mayor for eight years—you’ve got to know how to run a government. You’ve got to cut through the bureaucracy. You’ve got to stand up for working-class people. You’ve got to create the best educational system in the world that we can. You’ve got to make the system work efficiently.

Acyn

43,291 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Startup Archive

422,834 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce