Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

We asked Dan Gray what VCs get wrong about risk management. "If you properly manage risk, you can take more risky bets." "According to Dave McClure, a seed stage fund should have 100 startups, because of the small % that some become unicorns or deca-corns."

TBPN

90,924 subscribers

57,053 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"There's this feeling that Leopold was the one with the *courage* to take all this risk, or something." "But even that falls flat on a hedge fund manager, I'm afraid." Numerai founder Richard Craib: "Because it's like, someone goes all-in with pocket sevens. And he doubles his money." "Have you learned anything about his courage, or his skill, really? It's a bit foolish." "I also used to think this. I was a young hedge fund manager. I was a 28-year-old hedge fund manager. And I did also have this perception that, surely these big hedge funds are just so risk averse that, for psychological reasons, they refuse to take enough risk." "And I've come to learn that they're taking nearly the exact amount of risk that you should take." "Because these things are mathematical. There's a right amount of risk to take if you have a certain Sharpe ratio. And those numbers are smaller than you think if you want to run money for a very long time." "Leopold was up 400% in H1 of 2026. Well, Warren Buffett was up 5 million percent by basically being sensible for a very long time." "Do you want to do 400%, then lose everything? Or do you want to do the 5 million percent that takes 30 years?" "It's not that some people are unwilling to take risk. It's that they are already taking risk. It's just a small part of their portfolio."

"There's this feeling that Leopold was the one with the courage to take all this risk, or something." "But even that falls flat on a hedge fund manager, I'm afraid." Numerai founder Richard Craib: "Because it's like, someone goes all-in with pocket sevens. And he doubles his money." "Have you learned anything about his courage, or his skill, really? It's a bit foolish." "I also used to think this. I was a young hedge fund manager. I was a 28-year-old hedge fund manager. And I did also have this perception that, surely these big hedge funds are just so risk averse that, for psychological reasons, they refuse to take enough risk." "And I've come to learn that they're taking nearly the exact amount of risk that you should take." "Because these things are mathematical. There's a right amount of risk to take if you have a certain Sharpe ratio. And those numbers are smaller than you think if you want to run money for a very long time." "Leopold was up 400% in H1 of 2026. Well, Warren Buffett was up 5 million percent by basically being sensible for a very long time." "Do you want to do 400%, then lose everything? Or do you want to do the 5 million percent that takes 30 years?" "It's not that some people are unwilling to take risk. It's that they are already taking risk. It's just a small part of their portfolio."

TBPN

41,678 views • 10 days ago

Do Non-Profits Kill Ambition? Ben Merkle : If you're a for-profit business, you have this really hard, cruel, objective scoreboard that you must, you must score on. Or you must close down and go away. And I think that nonprofits, because you've removed that scoreboard -- what is the mission? Well, it becomes more and more about the replication of yourself. The replication of yesterday. When you're tuned to compete, then you're tuned to take risk. Risk-taking becomes really important because that's the only way you get ahead. But if you're simply tuned to survive, then you become super risk averse.

Do Non-Profits Kill Ambition? Ben Merkle : If you're a for-profit business, you have this really hard, cruel, objective scoreboard that you must, you must score on. Or you must close down and go away. And I think that nonprofits, because you've removed that scoreboard -- what is the mission? Well, it becomes more and more about the replication of yourself. The replication of yesterday. When you're tuned to compete, then you're tuned to take risk. Risk-taking becomes really important because that's the only way you get ahead. But if you're simply tuned to survive, then you become super risk averse.

Canon Press

13,096 views • 10 months ago

Lloyd Blankfein (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) on something most people get backwards about risk management: "you'd think a risk manager is always trying to repress people from taking risk." "sometimes a good risk manager has to promote the idea that people take risk. because that's what you're there for." "if you don't take risk, you don't move forward. there's no growth." "the alternative to never taking any risk will give you the comfort of not losing money for yourself or anybody else, but you also won't make progress." this is true inside Goldman Sachs and it's true in trading. after recovering a drawdown, the instinct can be to cut everything and take a break. sometimes the right risk management decision is the opposite, the system is working, the drawdown is normal, and pulling back is the actual mistake.

Lloyd Blankfein (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) on something most people get backwards about risk management: "you'd think a risk manager is always trying to repress people from taking risk." "sometimes a good risk manager has to promote the idea that people take risk. because that's what you're there for." "if you don't take risk, you don't move forward. there's no growth." "the alternative to never taking any risk will give you the comfort of not losing money for yourself or anybody else, but you also won't make progress." this is true inside Goldman Sachs and it's true in trading. after recovering a drawdown, the instinct can be to cut everything and take a break. sometimes the right risk management decision is the opposite, the system is working, the drawdown is normal, and pulling back is the actual mistake.

Goshawk Trades

20,832 views • 1 month ago

Leverage can make you rich. It can also wipe you out. In this video, I break down the timeline of Leopold’s Situational Awareness hedge fund blowup, how leverage turned a bad situation into a catastrophic one, and the risk management lessons every investor should understand. The biggest losses rarely come from being wrong. They come from being unable to survive being wrong. Risk management isn’t optional. It’s what keeps you in the game.

Leverage can make you rich. It can also wipe you out. In this video, I break down the timeline of Leopold’s Situational Awareness hedge fund blowup, how leverage turned a bad situation into a catastrophic one, and the risk management lessons every investor should understand. The biggest losses rarely come from being wrong. They come from being unable to survive being wrong. Risk management isn’t optional. It’s what keeps you in the game.

Michael Edward

47,874 views • 11 days ago

Numerai founder Richard Craib doesn't deny that Leopold is a visionary, but says that his extraordinary returns were driven much more by banal risk than alpha. "There's a place for that type of fund. Where you're going to take a big bet with a lot of risk." "And those types of funds can obviously produce extraordinary returns." "But the trouble is, the driver of the return is the risk, more than the alpha." "The alpha is there, but the driver of the return is the risk."

Numerai founder Richard Craib doesn't deny that Leopold is a visionary, but says that his extraordinary returns were driven much more by banal risk than alpha. "There's a place for that type of fund. Where you're going to take a big bet with a lot of risk." "And those types of funds can obviously produce extraordinary returns." "But the trouble is, the driver of the return is the risk, more than the alpha." "The alpha is there, but the driver of the return is the risk."

TBPN

71,474 views • 10 days ago

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.

Ethan Kho

70,267 views • 6 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On study conducted on 5000 heart attack patients, Professor of Cardiology, GB Pant Hospital, Dr Mohit Gupta says, "... In India, a heart attack happens 10 years before the death of a person. It is more severe. Often, if you and I go to a doctor and ask what the risk of a heart attack is, to calculate that, we have risk scores... All the risk scores that we have are either using Western risk scores, which are made up of 6 or 7 risk scores. We believed that if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population, that is, what are the chances of a heart attack in 10 years, if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population. These risk scores should not be validated for us because when these scores were made, they were made on the Western population... When we used Western risk scores in Indian heart attack patients, we saw that 80% of the people were classified in low risk and moderate risk..." (2.4)

#WATCH | Delhi: On study conducted on 5000 heart attack patients, Professor of Cardiology, GB Pant Hospital, Dr Mohit Gupta says, "... In India, a heart attack happens 10 years before the death of a person. It is more severe. Often, if you and I go to a doctor and ask what the risk of a heart attack is, to calculate that, we have risk scores... All the risk scores that we have are either using Western risk scores, which are made up of 6 or 7 risk scores. We believed that if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population, that is, what are the chances of a heart attack in 10 years, if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population. These risk scores should not be validated for us because when these scores were made, they were made on the Western population... When we used Western risk scores in Indian heart attack patients, we saw that 80% of the people were classified in low risk and moderate risk..." (2.4)

ANI

410,723 views • 4 months ago

Lightspeed partner Bucky Moore says early stage investing has gone from getting 15-20% in seed rounds to investing in a basket of companies from seed to Series A, and ending up with ownership in the low teens: "Right now I think early stage is in this tricky place, where for a seed round, you're generally getting around 10% ownership for the most competitive rounds." "As a result, if you go back to what kind of made the early stage model work, it was owning somewhere between 15-20% of companies that become really valuable." "So the way you have to play this now, as a multi-stage firm, is you get the 10% in the seed, then you effectively have to be in a position to buy up in the Series A. But at the same time, the Series As are also ballooning in price, and there's really not a lot of de-risking because the velocity is so fast compared to even a couple years ago." "So right now what you see a lot is: you get 10% in the seed, the Series A happens somewhere between like 150 and in some cases 300 post, and then you end up trying to lead or co-lead that, and then you end up in the low- to mid-teens." "It's just a different time, but that's what it takes nowadays...I think what that means is you're building a basket of companies that tend to be in that low- to mid-teens ownership more often than not."

Lightspeed partner Bucky Moore says early stage investing has gone from getting 15-20% in seed rounds to investing in a basket of companies from seed to Series A, and ending up with ownership in the low teens: "Right now I think early stage is in this tricky place, where for a seed round, you're generally getting around 10% ownership for the most competitive rounds." "As a result, if you go back to what kind of made the early stage model work, it was owning somewhere between 15-20% of companies that become really valuable." "So the way you have to play this now, as a multi-stage firm, is you get the 10% in the seed, then you effectively have to be in a position to buy up in the Series A. But at the same time, the Series As are also ballooning in price, and there's really not a lot of de-risking because the velocity is so fast compared to even a couple years ago." "So right now what you see a lot is: you get 10% in the seed, the Series A happens somewhere between like 150 and in some cases 300 post, and then you end up trying to lead or co-lead that, and then you end up in the low- to mid-teens." "It's just a different time, but that's what it takes nowadays...I think what that means is you're building a basket of companies that tend to be in that low- to mid-teens ownership more often than not."

TBPN

28,686 views • 4 months ago

Zapier CEO Wade Foster says individuals have become more productive with AI tools, but that it's not clear if companies as a whole are also becoming more productive: "Across Zapier, 100% of our employees are using AI daily. People are individually more productive. But if you were to ask me, 'Is the company more productive, institutionally are we more productive?' It's a lot harder to say yes to that." "This feels like the next thing that everybody's working on: How do we actually accelerate the institution? This gets harder because you actually have to rethink how the company works." "To give you an example, we've gone from a world where code was expensive to now code is cheap. In the world where code was expensive, you had all these processes upfront to talk to customers, to align on roadmaps, to figure out what the right thing to build was, because if you chose the wrong thing, that was a really expensive mistake." "But when code is cheap, you can get rid of all that stuff. And that takes redesigning jobs or rethinking the human where the human actually exists in the first place."

Zapier CEO Wade Foster says individuals have become more productive with AI tools, but that it's not clear if companies as a whole are also becoming more productive: "Across Zapier, 100% of our employees are using AI daily. People are individually more productive. But if you were to ask me, 'Is the company more productive, institutionally are we more productive?' It's a lot harder to say yes to that." "This feels like the next thing that everybody's working on: How do we actually accelerate the institution? This gets harder because you actually have to rethink how the company works." "To give you an example, we've gone from a world where code was expensive to now code is cheap. In the world where code was expensive, you had all these processes upfront to talk to customers, to align on roadmaps, to figure out what the right thing to build was, because if you chose the wrong thing, that was a really expensive mistake." "But when code is cheap, you can get rid of all that stuff. And that takes redesigning jobs or rethinking the human where the human actually exists in the first place."

TBPN

15,382 views • 3 months ago

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

178,597 views • 2 years ago

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

Founder Mode

106,909 views • 7 months ago

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land.

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land.

Michael McGuiness

735,645 views • 3 years ago

Most people think you need big money to start trading. You don’t‼️ What you actually need is skill, discipline, and patience. Starting small in trading is not a disadvantage. It’s actually one of the best things that can happen to a trader. Because when the account is small, the focus shifts away from chasing money and moves toward learning the game properly. You learn risk management. You learn patience. You learn that one clean setup is better than ten emotional trades. A lot of traders blow accounts because they try to skip the process. They want the big payouts immediately. They want the fast life before building the foundation. But the market has a way of humbling anyone who moves too fast. The traders who win long term are the ones who focus on percentages, not account size. Because if you can grow $100 consistently, you can grow $10,000. If you can manage risk on 0.01 lots, you can manage risk on 10 lots. The skill doesn’t change. Only the scale does. This is why smart traders build their edge first. Once the consistency is there, capital becomes easier to access, - whether through prop firms, reinvestment, or scaling up accounts. Trading is not about one lucky trade. It’s about building a system that works over and over again. So if you’re starting small, don’t rush it. Master the process. Protect your capital. Stay disciplined. Because in trading, small beginnings with consistency will always beat big accounts with no discipline.

Most people think you need big money to start trading. You don’t‼️ What you actually need is skill, discipline, and patience. Starting small in trading is not a disadvantage. It’s actually one of the best things that can happen to a trader. Because when the account is small, the focus shifts away from chasing money and moves toward learning the game properly. You learn risk management. You learn patience. You learn that one clean setup is better than ten emotional trades. A lot of traders blow accounts because they try to skip the process. They want the big payouts immediately. They want the fast life before building the foundation. But the market has a way of humbling anyone who moves too fast. The traders who win long term are the ones who focus on percentages, not account size. Because if you can grow $100 consistently, you can grow $10,000. If you can manage risk on 0.01 lots, you can manage risk on 10 lots. The skill doesn’t change. Only the scale does. This is why smart traders build their edge first. Once the consistency is there, capital becomes easier to access, - whether through prop firms, reinvestment, or scaling up accounts. Trading is not about one lucky trade. It’s about building a system that works over and over again. So if you’re starting small, don’t rush it. Master the process. Protect your capital. Stay disciplined. Because in trading, small beginnings with consistency will always beat big accounts with no discipline.

Techriz💯📈

83,326 views • 4 months ago

We asked Sean Liu, partner Founders Fund, about investing in hard tech companies. "The question we always debate a founder on is how many 'need to believe's do you have, to make the thesis work?" "The more 'and' statements there are, the worse it is. We don't like to make those bets." "The cleanest companies (like General Matter, Solugen, Neuralink, etc.) have 1-2 of these. You don't need to invent science with very little dependencies."

We asked Sean Liu, partner Founders Fund, about investing in hard tech companies. "The question we always debate a founder on is how many 'need to believe's do you have, to make the thesis work?" "The more 'and' statements there are, the worse it is. We don't like to make those bets." "The cleanest companies (like General Matter, Solugen, Neuralink, etc.) have 1-2 of these. You don't need to invent science with very little dependencies."

TBPN

24,826 views • 1 year ago

We asked Paul Graham about ragebait marketing. "That sort of technique sounds like the technique that would be popular with someone you'd describe as a bit of a scammer." "And the thing about these scammers is that they don't make the giant companies. They don't have a long-term focus... They're thinking about what gimmick they can use to get ahead." "So long-term they don't matter. You can skip the companies that do random **** like that because they're never going to be that big."

We asked Paul Graham about ragebait marketing. "That sort of technique sounds like the technique that would be popular with someone you'd describe as a bit of a scammer." "And the thing about these scammers is that they don't make the giant companies. They don't have a long-term focus... They're thinking about what gimmick they can use to get ahead." "So long-term they don't matter. You can skip the companies that do random **** like that because they're never going to be that big."

TBPN

180,088 views • 8 months ago

💡 Are we rethinking what we know about Bitcoin’s potential? 👇 Hear from our analyst Sam North and drop your take in the comments. ⚠️ Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 mins to learn more at

💡 Are we rethinking what we know about Bitcoin’s potential? 👇 Hear from our analyst Sam North and drop your take in the comments. ⚠️ Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 mins to learn more at

eToro

2,023,175 views • 1 year ago

We asked rahul about the global reach of ChatGPT and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."

We asked rahul about the global reach of ChatGPT and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."

TBPN

89,226 views • 1 year ago

We asked Sigil Wen (Extraordinary) about the O-1 visa. Extraordinary brings the world’s top talent to America’s technology companies. "I'd like to think that the O-1 visa was created for the Manhattan Project. It's that ethos. The premise is that you're in the top 0.1 percentile at what you do." “You can be a tattoo artist, chip designer, or founder of a fast-growing AI company. As long as you can prove you are extraordinary, you can get it."

We asked Sigil Wen (Extraordinary) about the O-1 visa. Extraordinary brings the world’s top talent to America’s technology companies. "I'd like to think that the O-1 visa was created for the Manhattan Project. It's that ethos. The premise is that you're in the top 0.1 percentile at what you do." “You can be a tattoo artist, chip designer, or founder of a fast-growing AI company. As long as you can prove you are extraordinary, you can get it."

TBPN

56,219 views • 1 year ago