Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

.Naval on Finding Technical Co-founders Join the conversation: "It's getting harder and harder because these days those people just go and start their own company. So what do you bring to the table that a good technical co-founder would not have? That's number one. And that would either mean...

14,487 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

4 Comments

Cragin Godley's profile picture
Cragin Godley2 years ago

@naval building is more brutal than selling, I’ve done both never ending on-call, security threats, 80-100hrs/wk at desk alone, constant interruptions of deep work engineers can learn sales, etc. but not the other way around so you must bring cash, network, expertise to balance this

Asadbek Noyibjonov's profile picture
Asadbek Noyibjonov1 year ago

@naval Hey Airchat team, can you help me with login issue? I sent detailed msg about issue in dm

•‿• Hantoshi's profile picture
•‿• Hantoshi1 year ago

@naval hey team🥰 i lost my access to airchat after it force me to update the app. now sms confirmation does not seem to be working. can you assistance please 🙏

Olúwátìmíléhìn's profile picture
Olúwátìmíléhìn1 year ago

@naval Can’t sign in

Related Videos

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 views • 5 months ago

Sam Altman on how to identify founders who can build $10 billion companies “It’s difficult to hear an idea at the very early stage and say: ‘Yeah, this idea has what it takes to be a $10 billion company.’ However, I think you can, with practice, identify founders that have a chance at creating one of those companies.’” The first four traits Sam looks for comes from gmail creator Paul Buchhiet: obsession, focus, frugality, and love. Next, Sam looks for intelligence: “You can give a founder an idea, but the problem is they need to come up with new ideas for the company basically every week… We tried an experiment at Y Combinator where we funded 20 teams of strong founders that didn’t have ideas but otherwise were really good, and they all failed. What we learned is that good founders have ideas all the time.” #6 is communication skills: “So much of your job as a founder is about communication—every time you hire someone, go to raise money, try to sell the product, and set a direction for the company. A huge amount of a founder’s job is being an evangelist for the company. If you don’t have strong communication skills or you don’t develop them quickly, you’re at a big disadvantage.” #7 is execution speed. How quickly can you generate a hypothesis, test it, and implement it? Sam observes that most slow-moving founders who went through Y Combinator didn’t go on to be successful: “A relentless cadence of execution is incredibly correlated with success.” #8 is the rate of improvement of the founder: “If you look at a founder who comes to meet you for a seed round and compare that founder to Brian Chesky, you will be disappointed 100% of the time. That’s the wrong comparison… You should look at the at the growth rate of the founder… Humans always underestimate exponential growth.” #9 is the right motivations: “There a lot of people who start a startup because they think it’s a way to get rich quickly, and unfortunately it’s just not. So startups have become the new default career trajectory for ambitious people… This does not work given the amount of pain you have to suffer for a startup… In our portfolio at YC, every time we thought a company was going to go really well and didn’t, the founder did not have a deep sense of mission.” Video source: Y Combinator (2018)

Startup Archive

167,320 views • 9 months ago

I asked anamitra why every VC is starting an accelerator: "As more traditional venture funds become stage agnostic, they don't want to lose sight of the formation stage companies. If you lose that, then you become one of 20 VC's trying to invest in any one round. In the past, they've had seed programs for this. And Seed programs historically have been promoted by younger people at those funds, because they're closer to the metal. And seed funds have gone through cycles. They grow, and then they collapse when founders realize Seed deals at these stage agnostic fund don't convert. So they got disintermediated, and the best founders all go to the angels and the seed funds. And then they grow again, and then they collapse again. And every time, all the young people leave the big funds. And that has happened over cycles for a long time. The Series A funds have been trying to penetrate Seed for a long time. And even if you didn't have a good Seed program, you had YC, and Techstars, and all the other accelerators, which would give you great deal flow. And you could go to the demo days and pick up the good ones. And the cool thing, back in the day, was you didn't actually have to wait for the demo day. You could access the companies before demo day, and make the deals beforehand. Even if you wait until demo day, it's wasn't that bad. You could still get decent ownership at $15m or $10m post-money valuations. And then, YC made two changes to their program. One of the big changes that they made sure companies wait until demo day. And the second was introducing the $375k uncapped MFM SAFE. Which incentivized founders to raise their next round at as high a price as possible. So now, founders were incentivized to raise at demo day, and at as high a price as possible. What used to be $10-15m valuation, are now $20m, $25m, and even up to $40m. And so, many funds were who were reliant on deals from YC saw their entry prices suddenly shoot up. And the question for them became, what do we do? If your average entry point was $10 million on a YC deal, it suddenly went up to $40m. You basically cut your returns by 75%. So if your strategy was doing all these YC deals, and getting a 4x return on your fund, everything was good. Suddenly with the new entry prices, you're getting 1x on your fund. And that's not good. For founders, YC gives you a halo, some brand value. They do a ton of programming and help you learn about building a company. Every founder wants to be part of that. No question about it. Look at the roster of companies that they've invested in. At the same time, there are some founders who may want a better option. Who may believe that their company is worth more than $1.8 million. And they should have an option. So I think, investors saw that their entry prices at demo day were going up. And founders are entering these accelerators at $1.8m post. And investors thought, there has to be a price in the middle that we can offer and give founders another option. And that's why they've all started accelerators. And as a result, what's happening is founders now have more choice. So the question now becomes, what do the best founders decide to do? Now that they have more options, what are they going to pick? And so, it makes a lot of sense to me to see these other funds try their own programs. And if they are committed, and focused, and they're able to source and market well, they're going to do really well. As they do really well, that's going to create a positive virtual cycle for future founders to decide which one should they pick. And they'll all have better options. So it's just going to get more competitive. And I would argue, this might have all been started because of the change in the YC deal. If the deal hadn't changed, would we have seen so much downstream impact?"

The Peel

28,637 views • 1 year ago

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 views • 5 months ago