Podcasts about Kleiner Perkins

AI may change software overnight, but company building still takes time.Ryan Smith explains why, despite the pace of AI, “the race is going to be way longer than anyone thinks.”He reflects on Qualtrics surviving multiple market cycles and ultimately being acquired by SAP for $8 billion days before going public.Guest: Ryan Smith, co-founder QualtricsConnect with Ryan SmithXLinkedInConnect with Joubin:XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow Grit: LinkedInX​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

Andy Chen of Outcast Ventures spent 15 years at Kleiner Perkins and Coatue studying what actually makes startups succeed — and the data surprised him. After analyzing every U.S. IPO and acquisition over $1 billion in the past two decades, Chen found that founders who didn't know each other beforehand built more valuable companies than those who did. He calls the trap the "convenient co-founder penalty." Now he's doing something about it: Catalyst, a co-founder formation program launching this week, brings together pre-vetted, high-caliber talent to find the right match before the company even exists. Chen also discusses the rise of AI-era solo founders, why elite schools don't predict bigger exits, and his own unlikely path — from CIA nuclear weapons analyst to venture capitalist. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Follow me @samirkaji for my thoughts on the venture market, with a focus on the continued evolution of the VC landscape.Welcome back to another episode of Venture Unlocked, the podcast that takes you behind the scenes of the business of venture capital.In this episode, I'm joined by three deep tech investors and friends of the show, Nate Williams, Sunil Nagaraj, and Guy Perelmuter, for a roundtable on the state of deep tech and the changing venture landscape. We dig into what deep tech really means today, why it's suddenly attracting so much capital, and how economics, government tailwinds, and AI as a “killer app” have pulled these once niche technologies into the mainstream. We also explore the growing concentration of capital in a handful of hyperscale winners, the tension between consensus vs. non-consensus investing, and what all of this means for emerging managers, LPs, and founders operating at the zero-to-one stage.Thanks for listening to another episode of Venture Unlocked. I hope you enjoyed this conversation with Nate, Sunil, and Guy. If you'd like to get Venture Unlocked content straight to your inbox, go to ventureunlocked.substack.com and sign up, or head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe. Thanks again for listening.Nate Williams is the Founder and Managing Partner of DeepTech seed firm UNION (Union Labs, Union Peak VC funds) and formerly served as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence (EIR) at Kleiner Perkins focusing on vertical “Physical AI” opportunities across Climate/Resilience, PropTech, and Mobility. Nate has made over 40 early-stage investments, including Urban Sky, Butlr, Antimatter (acquired by Databricks), Proxy (acquired by Oura), Ruby Robotics (acquired by Intuitive Surgical) and Klue (acquired by Medtronic). Before transitioning to full-time VC, Nate built a track record as a hands-on operator with senior leadership roles across startup, growth, and turnaround stages, culminating in successful exits for 4Home (to Motorola, 2010), Motorola Mobility (to Google, 2012), Motorola Home (to ARRIS, 2013), and August Home (to Assa Abloy, 2017). Earlier in his career, Nate was an Analyst in the Digital Home Group at Intel Corp. Nate holds an MBA from UCLA Anderson School of Management and a Bachelor's degree in Comms from the University of Connecticut.Sunil Nagaraj is the Founder and Managing Partner of Ubiquity Ventures, a seed-stage venture firm investing in “software beyond the screen,” including robotics, AI, industrial automation, and frontier technologies. Prior to founding Ubiquity, Sunil spent over a decade at Bessemer Venture Partners, where he invested in companies across cloud computing, developer tools, and emerging technologies. He is widely recognized for his early conviction in deep tech and infrastructure-driven innovation before it became mainstream in venture capital.Guy Perelmuter is the Founder and Managing Partner of GRIDS Capital, a venture firm focused on deep tech, AI, and advanced industrial technologies. With a background spanning engineering, technology, and investing, Guy has built his career around backing highly technical founders tackling complex global problems. He is known for his insights into the convergence of AI, infrastructure, and industrial transformation, as well as his emphasis on technical depth and long-term value creation in venture investing.Timestamps:Topics in this conversation include:* Definition of Deep Tech by Technical Prowess and Advanced Engineering (2:51)* Hardcore Technology, Difficulty to Build, and Hardware Misconceptions (3:51)* Drivers Of Deep Tech Tailwinds: Maturing Technologies and Government Push (6:12)* Excess Investor Interest After SpaceX and Other Breakout Successes (9:18)* Historical Analogy to Electrification and AI as New Infrastructure Layer (14:43)* Need For Specialized Deep Tech Expertise and New VC Org Structures (19:36)* Schizophrenic Risk-on Behavior and King-making of Consensus Winners (22:08)* Why Normal M and A and IPO Outcomes Still Matter For Smaller Funds (26:53)* Fund Proliferation, New Managers, and What Will Prove Transient (28:49)* Access Capital, Hollywood-ization of Venture, and Coming Bust Risks (33:34)* Consensus Growth Obsession, 10x Expectations, and Metric Distortions (38:02)* How Seed Managers Adapt and Curate Downstream Capital for Portfolios (41:01)* Founder-led Investor Selection and Power Shifting To Specialist Seed GPs (44:53)* Myths About VC Impact, Trend Surfing, and Overstated GP Influence (48:18)* Final Thoughts and Takeaways (53:11)Follow me @SamirKaji and give me your insights and questions with the hashtag #ventureunlocked. If you'd like to be considered as a guest or have someone you'd like to hear from (GP or LP), drop me a direct message on X. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit ventureunlocked.substack.com

Great software companies often come from understanding pain points at a very deep level.On Grit, Aman Narang shares how Toast built trust with 171,000+ restaurant operators by helping restaurants manage everything from payments and online orders to staff scheduling and daily operations.He also reflects on lessons around product-market fit and scaling a company before it's fully ready.Guest: Aman Narang, co-founder and CEO, ToastConnect with Aman NarangLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aman-narang-155628/Connect with ToastLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/toast-inc/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/toasttab/X: https://x.com/ToastTab?lang=enConnect with Joubin:X: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Join Yogi Goel, Co-founder, CEO, and CFO of Maxima, for an unvarnished conversation on breaking the legacy architecture of corporate finance. After a 20-year career spanning auditing at EY, tech IPOs at Citi and Barclays, and scaling Rubrik from $5M to $900M in ARR, Yogi was firmly on the venture-backed CFO track. Instead, he realized that despite decades of enterprise software, accounting teams were still trapped in a monthly cycle of manual data wrangling and spreadsheet anguish. In this episode, we explore how Maxima secured $41M in funding from Kleiner Perkins and Redpoint, why the "semi-annual close" debate misses the mark, and why the future of finance relies on AI acting as a horizontal system of work layered directly over existing ERPs.

Founder quality becomes more important as startups become easier to build.Trae Stephens, co-founder of Anduril and partner at Founders Fund, has spent years backing founders with strong conviction, including most recently at Roadrunner.He shares why too much capital too early can hurt startups, and why the best companies are built by teams with complementary strengths.Guest: Trae Stephens, co-founder, Anduril and Partner, Founders FundConnect with Trae StephensXLinkedInConnect with Joubin:XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow Grit on LinkedInFollow Grit on X​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

What does it take to run a company where the business is risk itself?In conversation with Joubin Mirzadegan, Peter Zaffino shares what the role demands at AIG, including high stakes decisions, constant responsibility, and sacrifice. This episode looks at his journey as CEO ahead of his transition to Executive Chairman this June.Leading at a global scale across 200+ countries.Guest: Peter ZaffinoConnect with Peter ZaffinoLinkedInConnect with Joubin:XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedInFollow on X​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Vishal Verma's family office has been operating out of Silicon Valley for over thirty years. His father arrived from India in 1977 with eight dollars in his pocket, worked as a rocket scientist, and eventually became an entrepreneur and venture capitalist. The family formalized their office in the late nineties with early LP positions in Sequoia Fund IX and Kleiner Perkins. Today Vishal manages a portfolio split across twenty-one venture capital firms and twenty-eight direct co-investments in generational companies including Anthropic, Wiz, Stripe, and xAI.In this episode, Prashant and Vishal go deep on how a thirty-year family office actually thinks about venture capital — the vintage strategy, the concentration framework, the Anthropic bet, and why most of what you hear about the first mover advantage is wrong.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe talk about -– The family origin story: $8 at the border to Silicon Valley– Portfolio construction: 70/30 public to private– The vintage strategy: why you have to be at every party– Three concentrations reshaping the VC ecosystem– The Anthropic investment at $18B valuation– AI vs crypto: behavioral change is everything– Bigger funds not returning DPI is hogwash– Emerging managers: what actually earns a check– DPI reality and the IPO bottleneck– Why family offices exist and what banks can't doTimestamps:(00:00) -Preview(01:40) - Introduction to Vishal Verma and His Family's VC Legacy(03:39) - The Family Office Origin Story: From India to Silicon Valley(06:57) - Challenges and Triumphs of Early Indian-American Entrepreneurs(08:56) - Why the Indian-American Community Thrives: Hard Work, Education, and Family(10:22) - Portfolio Construction and the First Investment in Sequoia(14:15) - The Rationale Behind a 30% Allocation to Venture Capital(17:22) - How Shorter Fundraising Cycles Have Changed LP Strategy(22:25) - The Differentiator for Top-Tier VC Funds(24:34) - Understanding the "Concentration" of Returns, Capital, and Founders in VC(28:08) - Do Bigger Funds Actually Lead to Shrinking Returns?(30:17) - The "Mafias" of Silicon Valley and Their Role in Deal Flow(32:32) - The Investment Thesis for Anthropic at an $18B Valuation(36:55) - AI vs. Crypto: The Critical Difference of Behavioral Change(39:15) - First-Mover vs. Best-to-Market: Lessons from Tech History(40:32) - The Reality of Stretched DPI and Liquidity Challenges(41:35) - The Rise of "Megacorns" and the Upcoming IPO Wave(44:34) - AI Investing: When Does Conviction Become Overexposure?(48:38) - Public Market Strategy: A Tech-Heavy Portfolio(52:50) - ConclusionLinks:Edgewood Ventures - https://www.edgewoodvp.com/Connect with Vishal Verma - https://www.linkedin.com/in/vishal-verma-551327Connect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠Subscribe on Apple Podcasts - ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vc10x-investing-venture-capital-asset-management-private/id1632806986⁠Subscribe on Spotify - ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7F7KEhXNhTx1bKTBFgzv3k?si=WgQ4ozMiQJ-6nowj6wBgqQ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.com

In a market that hadn't changed in decades, Linear didn't win by being faster. They won by being more thoughtful.Karri Saarinen helped shape design at Airbnb and Coinbase before building Linear around small teams and high standards.On Grit, he shares how Linear is building for a new era of software development.Guest: Karri Saarinen, co-founder and CEO of LinearConnect with Karri SaarinenXLinkedInConnect with Josh Coyne:XLinkedInConnect with Joubin:XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedInFollow on X​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

Anj Midha is the founder of AMP, and a founding investor in Anthropic. Most recently, Anj was General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, leading frontier AI investments. He serves on the boards of Mistral, Black Forest Labs, Sesame, LMArena, OpenRouter, Luma AI and Periodic Labs and is an early angel in ElevenLabs among others. Prior to that, Anj was the cofounder/CEO of Ubiquity6 (acquired by Discord) and a partner at Kleiner Perkins. AGENDA:   04:00 Why the "Scaling Laws are Dead" rumor is dangerously wrong 05:30 The 4 bottlenecks stopping us from reaching Super Intelligence 11:30 Where will the actual value accrue in an AI-dominated world? 12:00 Why Europe is building a "Sovereign Stack" to escape US dominance 15:00 Inside the brutal early days of Anthropic and the 21 VCs who said "No" 19:30 Why the most successful AI startups are ditching the "Profit-First" motive 34:30 The 1885 Industrial Revolution: Why we have a "GPU Wastage" bubble 38:00 Is the CCP actually winning the full-stack AI systems race? 43:30 Monopoly Mafias: Will model providers eventually kill the App Layer?  

What does security look like when attackers use AI better than you do?Armadin recently raised $200M to build for the “attacker of the future,” where attacks are autonomous and harder to contain.On the Kleiner Perkins Grit podcast, Kevin Mandia joins Joubin Mirzadegan to share how he's thinking about this shift, why cybersecurity has always been a calling, and why customer trust is what ultimately compounds into market leadership.Guest: Kevin Mandia, Founder and CEO, ArmadinConnect with Kevin MandiaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-mandia-0a07173/Connect with Josh Coyne:XLinkedInConnect with Joubin:XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedInFollow on X​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

What can healthcare learn from Candy Crush? A lot. Jason Oberfest (VP Healthcare, Oura) used gaming psychology to build a first-of-its-kind digital health company (backed by Kleiner Perkins) — as well as roles at MySpace, Apple and more. Now he's bringing that playbook to Oura, following their $11B valuation and booming growth. LinksJason Oberfest: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonoberfest/Dr Mustafa Sultan: https://www.musty.io/

Yogi spent 20 years living the nightmare of enterprise accounting. As a senior finance leader at Rubrik, he watched highly paid professionals spend three weeks every month manually wrangling data into spreadsheets—a problem that caused mass burnout and multi-million dollar stock corrections.When ChatGPT launched, Yogi knew the technology was finally ready to solve the problem. In this episode, he breaks down how he left his executive track to found Maxima, how he landed massive enterprises like Scale AI and Rippling as early design partners, and why he managed to raise $41M from top-tier VCs like Kleiner Perkins and Redpoint before he even had a pitch deck.Why You Should ListenHow a 1st-time founder raised an $11M Seed and a $30M Series A in a year.Why replacing accountants with AI is a bigger opportunity than replacing SaaS tools.How to use the "Design Partner Playbook" to secure Fortune 500 customers.Why charging for an MVP creates the friction you actually need to find true PMF.The difference between selling "digital shelves" and selling "folded laundry" in the age of AI.Keywordsstartup podcast, startup podcast for founders, AI in accounting, enterprise SaaS, product market fit, finding pmf, raising seed round, raising series a, B2B sales, design partners00:00:00 Intro00:07:37 Leaving a CFO Track to Become a Founder00:11:52 Raising an $11M Seed Round from Kleiner Perkins00:20:07 The Design Partner Playbook00:22:34 Why You Must Charge Your Early Design Partners00:28:36 The Aha Moment for Product Market Fit00:33:20 Selling "Folded Laundry" Instead of "Digital Shelves"00:36:47 Raising a $30M Series A Pre-EmptivelySend me a message to let me know what you think!

```html i'm wall-e, welcoming you to today's tech briefing for wednesday, march 25th. get ready for the latest in tech and beyond: amazon's robotics expansion: amazon acquires fauna robotics, specializing in kid-size humanoid robots, following its recent purchase of rivr. this strategic move strengthens amazon's robotics division, bringing together top engineers from meta and google at its new york city headquarters. kleiner perkins' new investment funds: the venture capital giant boosts its investment capacity with $3.5 billion across two new funds, focusing on early-stage and later-stage companies with an emphasis on the burgeoning ai sector. their portfolio includes spacex and anthropic, both preparing for potential public offerings. epic games layoffs: with reduced fortnite engagement, epic games announces layoffs of 1,000 employees. ceo tim sweeney points to high operational costs as the factor, while ensuring affected employees receive severance and extended healthcare. meta's legal setback: a new mexico jury orders meta to pay $375 million for misleading practices on child safety. this case highlights ongoing social media challenges concerning young users and the potential for increased legal scrutiny. spotify's artist protection feature: addressing ai-generated track concerns, spotify introduces a feature allowing artists to approve tracks linked to their profiles, safeguarding their creative identity amidst industry-wide issues with ai content. that's all for today. we'll see you back here tomorrow ```

Emil Michael went from scaling Uber across 600 cities to rewiring the world's largest military.In the midst of the Pentagon-Silicon Valley debate, the now U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering opens up about what a real partnership demands from both sides.He also shares how he's built three new entry points for defense tech companies, and why America's military is called the "Department of War" again.Guest: Emil Michael, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and EngineeringConnect with Emil MichaelXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

Few founders have seen Silicon Valley from every seat at the table.After co-creating Google Maps at Google, serving as CTO at Facebook, and later as co-CEO of Salesforce, Bret Taylor is now building AI agents at Sierra to redefine customer experience.On Grit, he explains why “competitive intensity” is a core value at their fast-growing company and why he believes AI won't lead to a world where people stop working.Guest: Bret Taylor, co-founder of SierraConnect with Bret XLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow GritLinkedInX​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Lucas Swisher co-leads the growth fund at Coatue where he has partnered with iconic companies like OpenAI, Harvey, Deel, Canva, Openevidence, Anthropic, and others. Prior to Coatue, he was on the investment team at Kleiner Perkins, where he focused on growth stage software businesses.  AGENDA: 04:23 Why Public SaaS Is Getting Crushed in the AI Wave 06:01 How to Find Value in the Deluge of Public SaaS 10:34 Durability of Revenue in AI 17:42 Market Size vs. Founder Quality: What Wins? 19:04 Why Price is the Last Thing to Matter 24:58 Mega-Funds Math: Can $5B+ Funds Still Generate Venture Returns? 28:04 What Returns Are 'Enough'? Why 3x Isn't Exciting at Growth 30:34 When Double-Downs Go Wrong: Overestimating TAM and Multi-Product Expansion 33:03 Margin Matters… But at Scale: AI Gross Margins, Cost Curves & Efficiency 36:42 Why it has never been harder to be a seed investor 39:25 Is 'Kingmaking' a Myth: When Capital Helps (and When It Hurts) 44:12 Is Canva Really a Platform Company? Multi S-Curves and Leaning into AI Early 46:05 Lessons from Mary Meeker: Modeling, Storytelling with Data, and Not Missing the Forest 48:27 Lessons from Mamoon Hamid: Spotting Inflection Points with Minimal Data (Figma Story) 49:54 LP 'Pick One' Games: Mamoon Hamid, Mary Meeker, Insight Partners 51:41 OpenAI vs Anthropic: Who Wins? 56:52 Most Memorable Founder Meeting: Harvey and Founder-Market Fit 59:00 Career Decisions & Misses: Leaving Insight, Missing Anduril, and Looking Ahead  

What began as a 14 year old fixing infected computers became Malwarebytes, an 800 person cybersecurity company trusted by millions of customers.On Grit, Marcin Kleczynski joins Joubin Mirzadegan to explore AI driven cyber threats, strategic reinvention, and the discipline of evolving before the market forces you to.“We've exceeded. Now, what do we do to protect individuals against the next wave of threats, which are plentiful?”Guest: Marcin Kleczynski, CEO at MalwarebytesConnect with Marcin KleczynskiX: https://x.com/mkleczynskiLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinkleczynski/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins: https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Welcome to Printing Money Episode 36!  For this episode Danny is joined by a new guest, John Barnes (Founder and President, The Barnes Global Advisors, Founder and CEO, Metal Powder Works (MPW.ASX). From career foundations in industrial development John has built both an AM consultancy and a metal AM powders company. We are thankful to have his perspective here. This episode starts with a look at John's background and what's brought him to this point. Then, Danny and John review the MILAM 2026 event which occurred earlier this month in Tampa Bay. From Tampa the conversation heads to Australia as a nexus for the global metal AM powder market.  John and Danny dive into dynamics driving that. After the low-down down under, the conversation turns to Printing Money's why and wherefore — 3DP/AM deal analysis around the globe from VulcanForms and Hadrian in the USA, to SWISSTO12 and Additive Drives in Europe, to Snapmaker in China, and more. The best quote of the episode is actually a paraphrase from Seinfeld, as John drops “The whale is the largest mammal in the world, but it doesn't have to be!” seamlessly amidst incisive deal analysis. Danny and John will continue the discussion in person at AMS 2026 this week in New York City.  Meanwhile, please enjoy Episode 36 and check out our previous episodes too. This episode was recorded February 17, 2026. Timestamps: 00:12 – Welcome to Episode 36 and welcome to John Barnes (TBGA & MPW) 01:14 – John Barnes' career, in his own words: Sandia, Lockheed/Skunkworks, CSIRO, RTI 06:25 – TBGA founded in 2017, MPW founded shortly thereafter 07:44 – Can 3DP/AM materials companies be parts producers? 09:45 – MILAM 2026 review: A displacement between capabilities and use? 13:35 – Dissociating sustainment from new builds 15:00 – An impressive sense of urgency (at MILAM 2026) 17:12 – DoW inefficiencies stymie return on investment 21:21 – The global metal AM powder market 24:59 – The ASX (Australian stock market) applicability for metal AM powder companies (MPW, 6KA, 3DA, TTT, etc) 25:22 – Scaling, and the value proposition for metal AM powders 30:00 – 6K Additive IPOs in Australia 30:33 – Metal Powder Works' path to public markets in Australia 35:55 – List in Australia, scale operations in the United States 37:10 – MPW.ASX raises AUD 15M in follow-on offering 38:21 – Hadrian receives investment for advanced manufacturing facility 38:39 – VulcanForms raises $220M from Eclipse, 1789 Capital and more 43:08 – Machina Labs raises $124M from Lockheed Martin, NVIDIA, and more 45:44 – Additive Drives $20M+ round 48:09 – Uptool raises $6M from Khosla, Bessemer, Kleiner Perkins, et al. 50:47 – Kickstart this: Snapmaker raises a more classical Series B 52:38 – SWISSTO12 raises EUR 73M (not all equity) 54:48 – Perseus Materials receives strategic investment from Lockheed Martin 57:53 – Vulcan and Burgmaster merge to form MASTREX for very low cost metal LPBF 1:03:27 – Thingiverse to be acquired by MyMiniFactory 1:03:53 – Reasons for optimism for the metal AM market 1:04:52 – Thanks again to John, thanks for listening, and see you at AMS this week! 1:05:19 – Disclaimer Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, you should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. Nothing stated on this podcast constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer by the hosts, the organizer or any third-party service provider to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in this or in any other jurisdiction in which such solicitation or offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.  The information on this podcast is of a general nature that does not address the circumstances and risk profile of any individual or entity and should not constitute professional and/or financial advice. Referenced transactions are sourced from publicly available information. Danny Piper is a registered representative of Finalis Securities LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This material has been prepared for information and educational purposes only, and it is not intended to provide, nor should it be relied on for tax, legal, or investment advice. Investors should consult with their own tax, legal, and financial professionals before investing. Real estate investments are generally highly risky. They can be volatile, unpredictable, illiquid, and are subject to ebbs and flows and market shifts. Investors also risk the loss of all principal investments.

Can you scale customer support without burning out agents or frustrating customers?Ping Wu shares how Cresta combines AI and human intelligence into a single system that scales sustainably for companies like United Airlines and Porsche.In this episode, Ping also breaks down the three constraints that shape automation in the real world: conversation complexity, infrastructure debt, and customer demographics.Guest: Ping Wu, CEO of CrestaConnect with Ping WuX: https://x.com/ping_wuLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pingwu/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins: https://www.kleinerperkins.com/ 

USDC closed the gap between software and law in modern finance.On Grit, Jeremy Allaire discusses how fully reserved, dollar backed digital currency became part of the financial system after more than a decade of work.He also shares why for him grit is about sustaining belief through deep uncertainty, even when Circle faced the threat of bankruptcy in 2019.Guest: Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO at Circle​Connect with Jeremy AllaireX: https://x.com/jerallaireLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremyallaire/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/ 

Sam Lessin is a partner at Slow Ventures, a former VP of Product at Facebook, and a two-time founder who's now teaching etiquette to Silicon Valley's founders. In this unconventional episode, Sam explains why proper etiquette has become a vital skill for founders in 2026—especially as technology becomes more central to society and trust becomes harder to build. His etiquette book and courses have become surprisingly popular, teaching founders how to “show up in a room with a low heart rate” and quickly build trust.We discuss:1. Why etiquette matters2. Sam's framework for showing up confidently, with a low heart rate, in any room3. How to navigate introductions, small talk, meetings, and meals like a pro4. Simple hacks for remembering names and handling awkward social situations5. 30+ specific etiquette tips—Brought to you by:10Web—Vibe-coding platform as an APIDX—The developer intelligence platform designed by leading researchersWorkOS—Modern identity platform for B2B SaaS, free up to 1 million MAUs—Episode transcript: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/silicon-valleys-missing-etiquette-playbook—Archive of all Lenny's Podcast transcripts:https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yxi4s2w998p1gvtpu4193/AMdNPR8AOw0lMklwtnC0TrQ?rlkey=j06x0nipoti519e0xgm23zsn9&st=ahz0fj11&dl=0—Where to find Sam Lessin:• X: https://x.com/lessin• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wlessin• Website: https://www.wlessin.com• Podcast: https://moreorlesspod.com• Lettermeme: https://lettermeme.com/lessin—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Sam's background(04:18) The role of etiquette in business success(09:30) Introductions and entering a room(16:20) Engaging conversations and building relationships(23:55) Hygiene and dress code essentials(33:42) Dining etiquette(37:15) Tipping etiquette(41:36) The “B&D trick”(43:05) Humor in social settings(45:18) Self-deprecating humor(47:42) Winding down conversations(49:20) Scheduling etiquette(55:23) Communication and email etiquette(01:02:28) Meeting etiquette tips(01:04:03) Virtual meeting best practices(01:05:15) The importance of cleaning up after yourself(01:05:58) Exiting and follow-up etiquette(01:07:24) Final thoughts(01:09:20) AI corner(01:11:13) Contrarian corner(01:16:25) Lightning round—Referenced:• Y Combinator: https://www.ycombinator.com• Kleiner Perkins: https://www.kleinerperkins.com• “Lose Yourself” by Eminem on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/track/7MJQ9Nfxzh8LPZ9e9u68Fq• Alison Gopnik on Childhood Learning, AI as a Cultural Technology, and Rethinking Nature vs. Nurture: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/alison-gopnik• Garry Tan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/garrytan• Bain & Company: https://www.bain.com• Evernote: https://evernote.com• Calendly: https://calendly.com• Morning Brew: https://www.morningbrew.com• Cursor: https://cursor.com• The rise of Cursor: The $300M ARR AI tool that engineers can't stop using | Michael Truell (co-founder and CEO): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/the-rise-of-cursor-michael-truell• DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com• Cloudflare: https://www.cloudflare.com• SpaceX: https://www.spacex.com• Marc Andreessen on X: https://x.com/pmarca• Landman on Prime Video: https://www.amazon.com/Landman-Season-1/dp/B0D4D8RTMD• Dave Morin on X: https://x.com/davemorin—Recommended books:• Modern Etiquette in Technology, Finance, Society, and at Home: A Slow Ventures Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Etiquette-Technology-Finance-Society-ebook/dp/B0G4HSKSY5• Life, the Universe and Everything: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Everything-Hitchhikers-Guide-Galaxy-ebook/dp/B001ODEQ7A• The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-City-Religion-Institutions-Greece/dp/0801823048• Man's Search for Meaning: https://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl-ebook/dp/B009U9S6FI• Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base: https://www.amazon.com/Area-51-Uncensored-Americas-Military-ebook/dp/B004THU68Q• The Lessons of History: https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-History-Will-Durant/dp/143914995X• The Fish That Ate the Whale: The Life and Times of America's Banana King: https://www.amazon.com/Fish-That-Ate-Whale-Americas/dp/1250033314• The Last Kings of Shanghai: The Rival Jewish Dynasties That Helped Create Modern China: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Kings-Shanghai-Jewish-Dynasties/dp/0735224439—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com

Glean has grown into a $7.2B company by giving employees AI assistants and agents that extend their capabilities.CEO Arvind Jain is back on Grit alongside Joubin Mirzadegan. Here's what stood out:“My mindset by default is that if you build something last year, that it's got to be obsolete. There has to be a new way to do that thing better today. If not, then it's just lack of imagination.”“I have no doubts that AI capabilities are just going to increase more and more over the next few years. But even more important is this concept of how much are we even leveraging what AI can do today? I would say that we've not even used 1% of current capabilities of these models”“If you're trying to be everything to everyone, then you just cannot compete with somebody who's focused on a smaller problem and going deep into that.”You can also listen to Arvind's earlier episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIH0Qp6d6bg&list=PLRiWZFltuYPF8A6UGm74K2q29UwU-Kk9k&index=96Guest: Arvind Jain, founder and CEO, Glean​Connect with Arvind JainX: https://x.com/jainarvindLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jain-arvind/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

2025 has officially become the year of AI — and the pace isn't slowing down.In this episode of Liftoff, we sit down with Michael Palmer, CEO & Chief Scientist of Taos Research Corporation and author of the new book Agentify: The Art, Science, and Engineering of Successful AI Agents. Michael brings decades of experience spanning Silicon Valley startups, venture capital at Kleiner Perkins, and leadership roles at Yahoo and U.S. Bank, where he led AI, data, and digital transformation.We dive deep into how AI agents are evolving beyond simple prompts into systems with real agency, autonomy, and initiative — and what that means for startups, enterprises, and solopreneurs alike. Michael explains why vertical focus matters, how companies should rethink org structures in an AI-first world, and why the next billion-dollar company might be built by just one person and a fleet of AI agents.If you're a founder, operator, or builder trying to understand what's next in AI — this conversation is essential listening.

In this recap episode, we highlight the best moments from our 2025 interviews and reflect on the ideas that defined the year.Featuring:David Rubenstein (co-founder of Carlyle) - From White House to Wall Street: David RubensteinYamini Rangan (CEO of HubSpot) - HubSpot CEO on the Future of SaaS, AI, & Leading Through ChangeBen Chestnut (co-founder of Mailchimp) - Bootstrapped to 12B: Mailchimp's Ben Chestnut on Life After the ExitWinston Weinberg (co-founder and CEO of Harvey) - I Raised $300M To Bring AI To Laywers | Winston Weinberg & HarveyGarrett Lord (co-founder of Handshake) - The Expert Network Behind Handshake AI's Model Training w/ Garrett Lord & Mamoon HamidAidan Gomez (co-founder and CEO of Cohere) - Synthetic Data and the Future of AI | Cohere CEO Aidan GomezMichelle Zatlyn (co-founder of Cloudflare) - Building Cloudflare for the Next 50 Years | Co-founder Cloudflare Michelle ZatlynEvan Spiegel (co-founder and CEO of Snap) - How Snap Plans to Win the AR Race | Evan Spiegel on SpectaclesConnect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins: https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

What happens when AI becomes your most influential referrer?As consumers turn to ChatGPT for answers, James Cadwallader and his team at Profound help brands like Eight Sleep and MongoDB gain visibility and leverage inside AI models.On this episode of Grit, he explains why brand narrative has shifted away from content, and why Profound is scaling globally ahead of traditional SaaS timelines.Guest: James Cadwallader, co-founder and CEO of Profound and Ilya Fushman, partner at Kleiner PerkinsConnect with James CadwalladerX: https://x.com/thejamescad?lang=enLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jsca/​Connect with Ilya FushmanX: https://x.com/ilyafLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilyafushman/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.comFollow on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpgritFollow on X:https://x.com/KPGrit​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins: https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Dave Whorton⁠ is an experienced tech investor and founder who spent 20 years of his career at the highest levels of Silicon Valley venture capital and tech startups. He worked directly at the top venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins and co-founded four companies, including⁠ ⁠⁠drugstore.com⁠ and Good Technology. He is also the founder of the Tugboat Institute and the author of the brand new book, ⁠Another Way⁠. Dave joined host Robert Glazer on the Elevate Podcast to discuss his remarkable career, the pros and cons of the Silicon Valley growth strategy, and the Evergreen Companies that achieve lasting, sustainable growth. Thank you to the sponsors of The Elevate Podcast Mizzen & Main: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠mizzenandmain.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (Promo Code: elevate20) Shopify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠shopify.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Indeed: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠indeed.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Masterclass: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠masterclass.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Northwest Registered Agent: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠northwestregisteredagent.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Homeserve: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠homeserve.com⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Turning down a $3B offer from Facebook is a bold move for any young CEO.Evan Spiegel shares how Snap's early dream was to stay independent and give its community an authentic voice, a bet that proved right.He also explains why they are now doubling down on AR glasses and why the anxiety around AI deserves far more attention from tech leaders.Guest: Evan Spiegel, co-founder and CEO of Snap Inc. and Bing Gordon, Advisor at Kleiner Perkins​Connect with Evan SpiegelX:https://x.com/evanspiegel?lang=enLinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-spiegel/​Connect with Bing GordonX: https://x.com/bingfish LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/binggordon/Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/ 

Glean started as a Kleiner Perkins incubation and is now a $7B, $200m ARR Enterprise AI leader. Now KP has tapped its own podcaster to lead it's next big swing.From building go-to-market the hard way in startups (and scaling Palo Alto Networks' public cloud business) to joining Kleiner Perkins to help technical founders turn product edge into repeatable revenue, Joubin Mirzadegan has spent the last decade obsessing over one thing: distribution and how ideas actually spread, sell, and compound. That obsession took him from launching the CRO-only podcast Grit (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRiWZFltuYPF8A6UGm74K2q29UwU-Kk9k) as a hiring wedge, to working alongside breakout companies like Glean and Windsurf, to now incubating Roadrunner which is an AI-native rethink of CPQ and quoting workflows as pricing models collapse from “seats” into consumption, bundles, renewals, and SKU sprawl.We sat down with Joubin to dig into the real mechanics of making conversations feel human (rolling early, never sending questions, temperature + lighting hacks), what Windsurf got right about “Google-class product and Salesforce-class distribution,” how to hire early sales leaders without getting fooled by shiny logos, why CPQ is quietly breaking the back of modern revenue teams, and his thesis for his new company and KP incubation Roadrunner (https://www.roadrunner.ai/): rebuild the data model from the ground up, co-develop with the hairiest design partners, and eventually use LLMs to recommend deal structures the way the best reps do without the Slack-channel chaos of deal desk.We discuss:* How to make guests instantly comfortable: rolling early, no “are you ready?”, temperature, lighting, and room dynamics* Why Joubin refuses to send questions in advance (and when you might have to anyway)* The origin of the CRO-only podcast: using media as a hiring wedge and relationship engine* The “commit to 100 episodes” mindset: why most shows die before they find their voice* Founder vs exec interviews: why CEOs can speak more freely (and what it unlocks in conversation)* What Glean taught him about enterprise AI: permissions, trust, and overcoming “category is dead” skepticism* Design partners as the real unlock: why early believers matter and how co-development actually works* Windsurf's breakout: what it means to be serious about “Google-class product + Salesforce-class distribution”* Why technical founders struggle with GTM and how KP built a team around sales, customer access, and demand gen* Hiring early sales leaders: anti-patterns (logos), what to screen for (motivation), and why stage-fit is everything* The CPQ problem & Roadrunner's thesis: rebuilding CPQ/quoting from the data model up for modern complexity* How “rules + SKUs + approvals” create a brittle graph and what it takes to model it without tipping over* The two-year window: incumbents rebuilding slowly vs startups out-sprinting with AI-native architecture* Where AI actually helps: quote generation, policy enforcement, approval routing, and deal recommendation loops—Joubin* X: https://x.com/Joubinmir* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Where to find Latent Space* X: https://x.com/latentspacepodFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction and the Zuck Interview Experience00:03:26 The Genesis of the Grit Podcast: Hiring CROs Through Content00:13:20 Podcast Philosophy: Creating Authentic Conversations00:15:44 Working with Arvind at Glean: The Enterprise Search Breakthrough00:26:20 Windsurf's Sales Machine: Google-Class Product Meets Salesforce-Class Distribution00:30:28 Hiring Sales Leaders: Anti-Patterns and First Principles00:39:02 The CPQ Problem: Why Salesforce and Legacy Tools Are Breaking00:43:40 Introducing Roadrunner: Solving Enterprise Pricing with AI00:49:19 Building Roadrunner: Team, Design Partners, and Data Model Challenges00:59:35 High Performance Philosophy: Working Out Every Day and Reducing Friction01:06:28 Defining Grit: Passion Plus Perseverance Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

Glean started as a Kleiner Perkins incubation and is now a $7B, $200m ARR Enterprise AI leader. Now KP has tapped its own podcaster to lead it's next big swing. From building go-to-market the hard way in startups (and scaling Palo Alto Networks' public cloud business) to joining Kleiner Perkins to help technical founders turn product edge into repeatable revenue, Joubin Mirzadegan has spent the last decade obsessing over one thing: distribution and how ideas actually spread, sell, and compound. That obsession took him from launching the CRO-only podcast Grit (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRiWZFltuYPF8A6UGm74K2q29UwU-Kk9k) as a hiring wedge, to working alongside breakout companies like Glean and Windsurf, to now incubating Roadrunner which is an AI-native rethink of CPQ and quoting workflows as pricing models collapse from “seats” into consumption, bundles, renewals, and SKU sprawl. We sat down with Joubin to dig into the real mechanics of making conversations feel human (rolling early, never sending questions, temperature + lighting hacks), what Windsurf got right about “Google-class product and Salesforce-class distribution,” how to hire early sales leaders without getting fooled by shiny logos, why CPQ is quietly breaking the back of modern revenue teams, and his thesis for his new company and KP incubation Roadrunner (https://www.roadrunner.ai/): rebuild the data model from the ground up, co-develop with the hairiest design partners, and eventually use LLMs to recommend deal structures the way the best reps do without the Slack-channel chaos of deal desk. We discuss: How to make guests instantly comfortable: rolling early, no “are you ready?”, temperature, lighting, and room dynamics Why Joubin refuses to send questions in advance (and when you might have to anyway) The origin of the CRO-only podcast: using media as a hiring wedge and relationship engine The “commit to 100 episodes” mindset: why most shows die before they find their voice Founder vs exec interviews: why CEOs can speak more freely (and what it unlocks in conversation) What Glean taught him about enterprise AI: permissions, trust, and overcoming “category is dead” skepticism Design partners as the real unlock: why early believers matter and how co-development actually works Windsurf's breakout: what it means to be serious about “Google-class product + Salesforce-class distribution” Why technical founders struggle with GTM and how KP built a team around sales, customer access, and demand gen Hiring early sales leaders: anti-patterns (logos), what to screen for (motivation), and why stage-fit is everything The CPQ problem & Roadrunner's thesis: rebuilding CPQ/quoting from the data model up for modern complexity How “rules + SKUs + approvals” create a brittle graph and what it takes to model it without tipping over The two-year window: incumbents rebuilding slowly vs startups out-sprinting with AI-native architecture Where AI actually helps: quote generation, policy enforcement, approval routing, and deal recommendation loops — Joubin X: https://x.com/Joubinmir LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/ Where to find Latent Space X: https://x.com/latentspacepod Substack: https://www.latent.space/ Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction and the Zuck Interview Experience 00:03:26 The Genesis of the Grit Podcast: Hiring CROs Through Content 00:13:20 Podcast Philosophy: Creating Authentic Conversations 00:15:44 Working with Arvind at Glean: The Enterprise Search Breakthrough 00:26:20 Windsurf's Sales Machine: Google-Class Product Meets Salesforce-Class Distribution 00:30:28 Hiring Sales Leaders: Anti-Patterns and First Principles 00:39:02 The CPQ Problem: Why Salesforce and Legacy Tools Are Breaking 00:43:40 Introducing Roadrunner: Solving Enterprise Pricing with AI 00:49:19 Building Roadrunner: Team, Design Partners, and Data Model Challenges 00:59:35 High Performance Philosophy: Working Out Every Day and Reducing Friction 01:06:28 Defining Grit: Passion Plus Perseverance

What does it take to go from advising founders to becoming one?On this week's special Reverse Grit episode, we flip the script and put our Grit podcast host Joubin Mirzadegan in the guest seat.Joubin recently founded Roadrunner, where he is now co-founder & CEO. Roadrunner is building an AI‑native CPQ to modernize the quote‑to‑cash stack, drawing on years of conversations he's had with enterprise revenue leaders.Stepping into the host role, Mamoon Hamid joins Joubin to talk about his transition from sales leader to founder, how Roadrunner came together, and why it became our first incubation since Glean.Roadrunner is hiring! Check them out: https://www.roadrunner.ai/Guest: Joubin Mirzadegan, Partner, Kleiner Perkins​Connect with MamoonXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

In this special 10X Growth Strategies panel, host Preethy Padmanabhan brings together three top voices from venture capital and private equity to decode how investors really evaluate startups today — beyond hype, beyond flashy demos, and beyond the AI noise. Kayvan Baroumand (Founder, SignalRank), Patti Pan (General Partner, Solaris Venture Partners), and Aditya Naganath (Partner, Kleiner Perkins) share how the power-law plays out in real portfolios, what deep engagement metrics actually look like, why later-stage PE is shifting toward infrastructure and robotics, and how world-class funds pressure-test founders. A fast, sharp conversation on what separates companies that scale — from those that stall. ⸻ ⏱️ Chapters 00:00 – 00:24 • Host Welcome – Preethy sets the stage 00:24 – 02:03 • Kayvan's Intro – Power-law VC & AI-driven fund scoring 02:03 – 03:27 • New Venture Hub & Founder Support 03:27 – 04:36 • Patti's Intro – PE, Data Centers & Robotics 04:36 – 06:03 • Founder Mindset & Why Artistry Matters 06:03 – 07:54 • Aditya's Intro – Kleiner Perkins, History & Focus 07:54 – 09:20 • Investing in Early Enterprise & AI Trends 09:20 – 12:00 • Power Law in Action – Doubling Down & Pattern Recognition 12:00 – 15:00 • Picking Winners: What Real Signals Look Like 15:00 – 17:30 • Case Study: Sigma & Deep Engagement Metrics 17:30 – 19:40 • Evaluating Founders, Teams & Due Diligence 19:40 – 21:22 • High-Steam Companies & Early Red Flags 21:22 – 22:10 • What VCs Look for in AI Products 22:10 – 23:20 • Lightning Advice for Founders 23:20 – 24:00 • Closing & Next Session Transition

In this episode, Sasha Orloff talks with Yogi Goel, Co-founder and CEO of Maxima, about raising $41 million from Kleiner Perkins and RedPoint Ventures to build an agentic AI platform for enterprise accounting that automates journal entries, reconciliations, and variance analysis for complex companies, helping them close their books 2-3 days faster with 98% automation while strengthening SOX controls and freeing accountants from mundane tasks. -- SPONSORS: Notion Boost your startup with Notion—the ultimate connected workspace trusted by thousands worldwide! From engineering specs to onboarding and fundraising, Notion keeps your team organized and efficient. For a limited time, get 6 months of Notion AI FREE to supercharge your workflow. Claim your offer now at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://notion.com/startups/puzzle⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Puzzle

Fifteen years in, it can still feel like “we're just getting started.”Michelle Zatlyn, co-founder of Cloudflare, returns to Grit with Joubin Mirzadegan to share how Cloudflare secures the internet for millions, with a vision built to last generations.She also shares why staying close to reality and to customers becomes harder as success compounds, and how Cloudflare is helping content creators regain control in an AI driven internet.Guest: Michelle Zatlyn, co-founder and President of CloudflareConnect with Michelle ZatlynXLinkedIn​Connect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

Screens have pulled families apart. Brynn Putnam set out to bring them back together with Board, the world's ‘first face-to-face game console.'On Grit, she tells Joubin Mirzadegan how every venture she's built, including Mirror, started as a personal need, and how her true edge is the ability to strip an idea down to what actually matters.Guest: Brynn Putnam, founder and CEO of BoardConnect with Brynn PutnamXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

It strains credulity to believe that the world around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—filled with elite elites in finance, tech, entertainment, and fashion—was completely unaware of what was going on. For example, Ellen Pao, former Reddit CEO and one-time partner at venture firm Kleiner Perkins, publicly stated that Maxwell was invited to a Silicon Valley holiday party in 2011 despite existing reports that she was supplying underage girls for sex. Pao wrote that “we knew about her supplying underage girls for sex” and yet “that was fine with the ‘cool' people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” This confession suggests that circles of power didn't just “miss” what was happening—they arguably chose to ignore it.Similarly, the modeling industry had whispered about the predatory nature of agents like Jean‑Luc Brunel long before the Epstein-Maxwell drama exploded. Brunel was a longtime model scout and agency boss who received millions from Epstein to expand his business, and his name repeatedly came up in allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades. The fact that such warnings were circulating in fashion—well before the mainstream reckoning—raises the question: how could so many people connected to these men claim no knowledge, no signs, no suspicion? When one entire industry quietly signals something is rotten, it becomes much harder to swallow wholesale claims of unaware innocence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

It strains credulity to believe that the world around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—filled with elite elites in finance, tech, entertainment, and fashion—was completely unaware of what was going on. For example, Ellen Pao, former Reddit CEO and one-time partner at venture firm Kleiner Perkins, publicly stated that Maxwell was invited to a Silicon Valley holiday party in 2011 despite existing reports that she was supplying underage girls for sex. Pao wrote that “we knew about her supplying underage girls for sex” and yet “that was fine with the ‘cool' people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” This confession suggests that circles of power didn't just “miss” what was happening—they arguably chose to ignore it.Similarly, the modeling industry had whispered about the predatory nature of agents like Jean‑Luc Brunel long before the Epstein-Maxwell drama exploded. Brunel was a longtime model scout and agency boss who received millions from Epstein to expand his business, and his name repeatedly came up in allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades. The fact that such warnings were circulating in fashion—well before the mainstream reckoning—raises the question: how could so many people connected to these men claim no knowledge, no signs, no suspicion? When one entire industry quietly signals something is rotten, it becomes much harder to swallow wholesale claims of unaware innocence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Randy Komisar is an entrepreneur and investor at Kleiner Perkins.Previously, he was a co-founder of Claris Corp., served as CEO for LucasArts Entertainment and Crystal Dynamics, and acted as “virtual CEO” for such companies as WebTV and GlobalGiving. Randy also served as CFO of GO Corp. and as senior counsel for Apple Computer, following a private practice in technology law.Randy is a founding director of TiVo and serves on the Roadtrip Nation Advisory Board and Orrick's Women's Leadership Board. He is the author of the best-selling book,The Monk and the Riddle, as well as several articles on leadership and entrepreneurship. He is also the co-author of Straight Talk for Startups, the insider best practices for entrepreneurial success, Getting to Plan B, on managing innovation, and I F**king Love that Company, on building consumer brands.This conversation with Randy Komisar is just spectacular! We dive right into how he turned his interview with Neil Young from disaster to success, why growing up with a professional gambler sharpened his communication skills, the way that luck factors into your career, and the way to maximize your chances of serendipity coming your way.You'll learn pearl after pearl of wisdom from Randy in our conversation, including a crucial question he asks as an investor to any entrepreneur to assess what they're made of.Randy's such a great storyteller, and this discussion is not to be missed!Where to find Randy:Kleiner and PerkinsTimestamps:(00:00) The Neil Young interview disaster—and how Randy saved it(02:00) Throwing away the script and learning to “follow the spark”(03:15) Reading people: Randy's people-sense and street upbringing(04:00) Growing up with a salesman and professional gambler father(05:20) Lessons from watching gamblers: losing stories, tells, and ego(07:00) How his father's instincts shaped Randy's BS-detector in VC(12:35) Self-awareness, delusion, and Buddhism's core teaching(13:40) Coaching as holding up a mirror(14:20) Randy's winding path: from upstate NY to Brown University(15:55) Finding paradise at Brown: curiosity and lifelong learning(21:30) How meaningful small acts of encouragement can be(23:00) Enter Bill Campbell: how they met at Apple(34:00) The inner conflict: purpose vs. title(37:00) Managing through influence, not authority(39:30) Bringing the virtual-CEO model into venture capital(40:50) Success, skepticism, and earning trust at Kleiner(43:10) Why this? Why you? Why now?(44:30) “Is this worth failing at?”—the most important founder question(46:00) The gambler's wisdom: inviting luck(48:30) How to make yourself luckier (excellence, flexibility, humility)(50:10) Most great companies succeed with Plan B, not Plan A(51:30) A painful miss: the Juicero story(53:00) PR mismatch, press backlash, and the fatal Bloomberg articleConnect with Alisa! Follow Alisa Cohn on Instagram: @alisacohn Twitter: @alisacohn Facebook: facebook.com/alisa.cohn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alisacohn/ Website: http://www.alisacohn.com Download her 5 scripts for delicate conversations (and 1 to make your life better) Grab a copy of From Start-Up to Grown-Up by Alisa Cohn from Amazon

How do companies like Salesforce and Dell scale intelligence across every cloud?Aidan Gomez, co-founder and CEO of Cohere, explains how they're building AI that works across all enterprise systems and deploys anywhere, giving companies true flexibility and security.He joins Joubin Mirzadegan for a wide-ranging conversation on why synthetic data went from dismissed to indispensable, and how the race among AI labs is really unfolding.Guest: Aidan Gomez, co-founder and CEO of CohereConnect with Aidan: XLinkedInConnect with Joubin: XLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comLearn more about Kleiner Perkins

The hardest company to build is the one you start after you've already succeeded.After scaling Yext into a platform powering millions of businesses, Howard Lerman chose to start over with Roam, the “Office of the Future,” where humans and AI work side by side from anywhere.On Grit, he joins Joubin Mirzadegan to talk about the solitude of leadership and what happens when you stop building for Wall Street.Guest: Howard Lerman, co-founder and former CEO of Yext, and founder and CEO of Roam​Connect with Howard LermanXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

The hardest part of transformation is knowing what to let go of.Dan O'Connell, now leading Front as CEO and formerly on the board at Dialpad, joins Joubin Mirzadegan to explore the delicate balance between legacy and innovation as he leads a decade old company through the AI revolution.He also reflects on why courage and control can coexist in leadership, and what it means to “make decisions that give you energy.”Guest: Dan O'Connell, CEO of Front​Connect with Dan O'ConnellXLinkedIn​Connect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

Before AI became a buzzword, a few true believers were already building.Since early 2022, Mati Staniszewski and his team at ElevenLabs have been among them, working to create voices that “actually represent emotions.”He shares with Joubin Mirzadegan how voice AI is transforming diverse fields, from delivering personalized healthcare for different age groups to amplifying creativity in filmmaking.Guest: Mati Staniszewski, co-founder and CEO of ElevenLabsConnect with Mati StaniszewskiXLinkedIn​Connect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

What's product-market fit like when you give people the power to do what they never thought was possible?On this rerun of Grit from April 2024, Victor Riparbelli, co-founder and CEO of Synthesia, shares how his platform gave billions a new way to create video without cameras, and explores a future where video and audio replace text as the primary way to share knowledge and content.Guests: Victor Riparbelli, CEO and co-founder of Synthesia and Josh Coyne, Partner at Kleiner PerkinsConnect with Victor RiparbelliX: https://x.com/vriparbelliLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/victorriparbelli/​Connect with Josh CoyneX: https://x.com/josh_coyneLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuacoyne/​Connect with JoubinX: https://x.com/JoubinmirLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joubin-mirzadegan-66186854/Email: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Make your product irresistible, and everything else will follow.That's the philosophy of Grant Lee, co-founder and CEO of Gamma, an AI design platform with an 'anti-PowerPoint approach', used by over 50M people.This week on Grit, he also shares why enduring businesses aren't one person shows, and how their deliberate hiring process shapes and strengthens company culture.Connect with Grant LeeXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comLearn more about Kleiner Perkins

Scaling a business globally comes down to leaders who align teams and drive them forward together.Snowflake serves over 12,000 customers, and early executives Chris Degnan and Denise Persson share how they scaled the company while keeping the unlikely pairing of sales and marketing perfectly aligned through hypergrowth.They join Joubin Mirzadegan to share insights from their new book, Make It Snow, revealing how they built Snowflake's ‘go-to-market engine' and fostered a customer-first culture across every function.Guests: Chris Degnan, former CRO and advisor to the CEO at Snowflake, and Denise Persson, CMO at Snowflake.Connect with Chris Degnan LinkedIn​Connect with Denise PerssonLinkedIn​Connect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins:https://www.kleinerperkins.com/

Phoebe Gates went from failed prototypes in her Stanford dorm room to building one of the fastest growing fashion-tech startups in the world. In this interview, the co-founder of AI shopping app Phia shares how she and her co-founder Sophia Kianni scaled from 200 early users to half a million downloads, raised $9M from investors like Kleiner Perkins, Kris Jenner, and Sara Blakely, and turned their vision into a personal AI shopping assistant trusted by a new generation of consumers. From building in public and hacking growth with feedback loops to pitching high-profile investors and navigating privilege, Phoebe breaks down the exact strategies that fueled her rapid rise as a young founder. What you'll learn from this interview: • How Phoebe went from 50+ failed ideas to finding product-market fit in fashion-tech • The grassroots tactics she used to get her first 200 users • Why feedback loops and “pizza nights” became their biggest growth hack • How she pitched and secured investors like Kleiner Perkins, Kris Jenner, and Sara Blakely • The mindset shift that helped her see failure as experimentation • Why building in public became an unfair advantage for distribution and community • How to leverage AI and automation as a young founder to scale faster By the end of this interview, you'll walk away with a playbook for finding your idea, validating it with real users, and scaling it into a fast-growth business—so you can apply the same principles to your own entrepreneurial journey. SAVE 50% ON OMNISEND FOR 3 MONTHS Get 50% off your first 3 months of email and SMS marketing with Omnisend with the code FOUNDR50. Just head to https://your.omnisend.com/foundr to get started. HOW WE CAN HELP YOU SCALE YOUR BUSINESS FASTER Learn directly from 7, 8 & 9-figure founders inside Foundr+ Start your $1 trial → https://www.foundr.com/startdollartrial PREFER A CUSTOM ROADMAP AND 1-ON-1 COACHING? → Starting from scratch? Apply here → https://foundr.com/pages/coaching-start-application → Already have a store? Apply here → https://foundr.com/pages/coaching-growth-application CONNECT WITH NATHAN CHAN Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/nathanchan LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanhchan/ CONNECT WITH PHOEBE GATES Website → https://phia.com/ Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/phoebegates/ LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/in/phoebe-gates-82a60b296/ FOLLOW FOUNDR FOR MORE BUSINESS GROWTH STRATEGIES YouTube → https://bit.ly/2uyvzdt Website → https://www.foundr.com Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/foundr/ Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/foundr Twitter → https://www.twitter.com/foundr LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/company/foundr/ Podcast → https://www.foundr.com/podcast

What does it take to reinvent entire industries, over and over again?This week on Grit, Sebastian Thrun, the “godfather” of self-driving cars and massive open online courses, reflects on a career pushing the boundaries of technology across mobility, education, and AI.With Joubin Mirzadegan, he shares why he believes autonomous driving could become the biggest lifesaving technology in history, and how a wake-up call led him to found Udacity to truly democratize higher education.Guest: Sebastian Thrun, CEO of Stealth Startup, founder of Google X and UdacityConnect with Sebastian ThrunXLinkedIn​Connect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

What kind of founder builds a billion-dollar company around something anyone can use for free? Matt Mullenweg, co-founder of WordPress and CEO of Automattic, joins Joubin Mirzadegan to reflect on two decades of building the platform that now powers over 43% of all websites through cycles of doubt, decline, and reinvention.He also shares how Automattic aligns employees with its mission to democratize publishing and commerce through paid sabbaticals and remote work.Guest: Matt Mullenweg, co-founder of WordPress and founder and CEO of AutomatticConnect with Matt MullenwegXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.com​Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

In this episode of Partnering Leadership, Mahan Tavakoli speaks with Ann Hiatt, Leadership Strategist & Consultant and Author of the book Bet on Yourself. Ann Hiatt shared the many lessons she learned while working alongside the world's top tech CEOs—Google's Eric Schmidt, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Yahoo's Marissa Meyer. In addition to the story of her reinvention, Ann Hiatt shared common practices and approaches of these and other top-performing leaders.    Some highlights:- Ann Hiatt on how she ended up working at Amazon and supporting Jeff Bezos- How Ann Hiatt handled the crisis when the helicopter she booked for Jeff Bezos ended up crashing- The leadership models, habits, thought processes Ann Hiatt learned from working closely with Jezz Bezos and Eric Schmidt- Ann Hiatt on how to hire people who are value-aligned and a good culture fit for your company- Why you should and how you can Bet on Yourself.  Also mentioned in this episode:-Jeff Bezos, Founder and Executive Chairman of Amazon-Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google-Andy Jassy, President and CEO of Amazon-John Doerr, Venture Capitalist at Kleiner Perkins, an early investor in companies including Amazon & Google, and OKR advocate  Book Recommendations:Bet on Yourself by Ann HiattMeasure What Matters by John Doerr Connect with Ann Hiatt:Bet on Yourself WebsiteAnn Hiatt on LinkedInAnn Hiatt on TwitterAnn Hiatt on InstagramAnn Hiatt on Facebook Connect with Mahan Tavakoli: Mahan Tavakoli Website Mahan Tavakoli on LinkedIn Partnering Leadership Website