Stop hiring policy people off their LinkedIn and X credentials. Yes, I see the irony of posting this here. I've watched founders in India burn money and years on government affairs hires who brought exactly two things: connects and a 90,000-feet view. Here's what typically goes wrong: → Subject-matter depth is subpar. They've never been part of building a business, so they can't translate policy into business consequence. → Association formation is the only playbook. Associations matter , genuinely. But formation without outcomes is theatre, and scaring the founder about risk isn't the same as solving it. → Their actual hold on decision-makers is thin. Knowing a few PAs and ministers is not influence. Consensus is influence. Respect is influence. And to be fair, founders own part of this. Most are under enormous pressure and don't themselves know what a policy person should do, why they need one, or who to look for. So they hire the best-looking headline. What to actually build instead: → A team of economists and ace researchers, not one well-dressed generalist. → A developer or tech person who can explain the product truthfully to a regulator. → A lawyer who understands your industry not "regulation" in the abstract. → Someone who understands policy nuance, national security sensitivities, and the government's larger goals — and how to align with them rather than fight them. → Someone who can handle communications with LEAs, and actually help LEAs when they need it. → Someone the government and the larger system listens to as a friend. Behind-the-scenes relationships are the entire job. The best policy people I know are not in suits giving PR soundbites that make no sense. They are in rooms. For hours. For years. Telling the story, building consensus, backed by researchers and lawyers with wins that never appear in the media. If your game is long-term capital formation, real impact then hire for the room, not the headline.