JC retweeted
The best founders I know are:
1/ financially motivated but not money obsessed
2/ so committed they can’t imagine doing anything else
3/ driven by impact or never working a normal job again
--
did I miss any?
I'm 15 years into my career in tech. I've realized that the people I started with who are doing the best are:
- They're actually pretty boring. They genuinely love technology and wake up every day with an optimistic view on what's happening around them.
- They've mastered one thing people know them for. Product, design, engineering, it doesn't matter. They've built deep expertise in something and they're recognized for it.
- They're financially motivated, but not money-obsessed. They don't waste time at dead-end startups. Not because they're optimizing for cash, but because they want interesting problems at companies that matter.
- They take care of themselves. We don't talk about this enough, but tech is a grind. I've watched so many talented people burn out. A huge part of long-term success is just endurance, showing up at a high level, day after day.
- They got a win early. Call it luck, call it good judgment. I don't mean to be discouraging if you haven't had your break yet, but winning matters. Use your 20s and 30s to chase a big win. You don't have an agent. No one is managing your career but you. Go get one.
Good luck out there.
JC retweeted
You don't need to be a YC company to be successful. But acting like one certainly helps.
Characteristics of top YC founders:
- They sell everywhere they go.
- If they're not selling, they're coding.
- They decide quickly, then execute even faster.
- They are resourceful, never blocked.
- They relentlessly focus on customer acquisition.
- They relentlessly focus on customer conversations.
These are the characteristics that compound into success.
What did I miss?
JC retweeted
Unpopular opinion: you can brute force practically anything to $1m per year. Beyond that you need something special.
The difference between a $1m ARR company vs. a $5m ARR company is rarely the founder, the team, etc.
You can typically trace it back to efficient acquisition and healthy unit economics. Companies that have it go from $1m to $5m in the blink of an eye.
Companies that don’t get stuck at $1m. I’ve seen this more times than I can count.
It’s rarely the skill of the founder so much as the dynamics of their business.
JC retweeted
Top things I look for in an investor (as a YC founder)
1/ Writes checks quickly
I’ve never met a great investor who did not write checks quickly. The better the VC the faster they work, on average.
A big reason for this is they respect founders time. They realize that the most sought after founders want to get back to business and want partners who respect that.
I’ve also found some of the more nightmarish VCs to force long, convoluted and drawn out processes.
So definitely a pattern and speed is a good first check.
I always ask: “So if things go well here, what happens next? can you walk me through your typical investment process”
2/ Not “hands on”
I’ve met a lot of investors who brag to me about “value add” and “hands on” assistance.
That is not what I’m looking for.
I don’t want an overly confident MBA student diving into my business thinking they know what they’re doing.
Can investors help? Sure. But outside of capital they won’t be make or break for my company.
Personally, I want to minimize the number of people in my kitchen that don’t know how to cook.
You can fund the restaurant but you’re not “helping” the chef - this can turn from helpful to harmful quickly.
3/ Previous founder
Exception to all of the above is previous founders. Across the board they are phenomenal to work with.
They understand the life, the pain, the ups/downs. They even know to get out of your kitchen when it’s too crowded.
Outside of fast checks (which previous founders tend to do anyways), this is my second favorite criteria.
Previous founders are more often than not a pleasure to work with.
4/ Not a sheep
Many VCs simply tag along in the same rounds with their friends. This follow-the-leader behavior leads to a lot of signaling required from the founder.
I prefer to work with firms who can make a decision independently, using their own logic.
These folks tend to write first checks (first is most important), follow on if you need capital in the future, and move quickly.
5/ Good reviews
Yup. I background check if I can. Calling up portfolio company founders to get a read on what it’s like working with the firm.
How did they act when things were going well? What happened when things went poorly? Did they ever do anything shady or not-founder-friendly?
There’s been a few instances where a friendly investor was flagged by other founders for doing unfriendly things.
—
If an investor meets these criteria and willing to invest on reasonable terms, I wouldn’t over think it.
Take the check, get back to business.
This is my personal list, not a golden rule. you may have a different criteria you look for.
What did I miss?
JC retweeted
PSA for first time founders: If you focus all your efforts on customer acquisition you'll eventually crack it.
If your sole goal in the world was to find and close customers, you'll do it. You'll build the right features, you'll learn the right skills, you'll drop your favorite parts of the product for the ones users actually want.
The problem is usually in the form of
1/ Rigid thinking
Let's be real. Your idea sucks. So does mine. It always does. There's no getting around that.
You can't be too rigid with your idea or your product or you'll miss the gold mine right next to it. You've got to be flexible and curios enough to find the working path.
It's usually not the one you started with.
2/ Scattered focus
A lot of founders are looking for cofounders, investors, employees, advisors. All these side quests taking your focus away from what really matters.
You know what? If you've got customers then the rest will come. If you don't, they won't.
So focus is one thing but it must be well-directed. Focus on what matters - customers.
3/ Lack of commitment
You've got to give it everything you've got. From the time you wake up to the time you go to bed - it should be the only thing you're thinking about.
Every break. Every lunch. Every shower.
If you can do that then you'll eventually run through every idea, every scenario, every bet you can take. Then execute on them.
There are very few worlds in which someone this dedicated will fail.
4/ Excuses
I can hear them already.
- But.. we need money so we can..
- Well.. in this industry..
- You understand, you can’t just…
I’ve coached enough founders to know what comes next. A fantastic and completely logical sounding excuse.
My response is the same: How can do you it anyways? How can you do it faster than that?
Answer these questions in earnest. 99% of the time you’ll find a way to make it work.
Making excuses is what a rational person would do but founders are irrational - we push through.
JC retweeted
You don't need to be a YC company to be successful. But acting like one certainly helps.
Characteristics of top YC founders:
- They sell everywhere they go.
- If they're not selling, they're coding.
- They decide quickly, then execute even faster.
- They are resourceful, never blocked.
- They relentlessly focus on customer acquisition.
- They relentlessly focus on customer conversations.
But that's all a bit fluffy, isn't it? Here's some tactical advice 👇
The best hack to get all this done:
1. Generate minimum 20 customer conversations per day
2. Learn at least 1 thing from those conversations
3. Translate that learning into a concrete action (hopefully building or selling)
4. Repeat every day
This is the stuff that compounds into success.
JC retweeted
This past week I’ve received dozens of DMs asking for YC application reviews. There’s a clear pattern between great applications and bad ones.
1/
Good applications use simple language.
Bad applications use buzzwords.
2/
Good applications are easy to read.
Bad applications are very dense.
3/
Good applications have impressive traction.
Bad applications have little to none.
4/
Good applications make their product sound simple.
Bad applications make their product sound complex.
JC retweeted
Things that surprise first-time Founders and CEOs that weren’t on Brian’s list.
1. You’re scared shitless but have to stand up and convey confidence
2. You’re often expected to know the answer but you’ve got no clue
3. Every problem eventually becomes your problem.
4. You only get the hardest, unsolvable problems.
5. You have to fire people you like, even if you won’t want to.
6. PMF is not forever. Once found you must fight to keep it.
7. The feeling that your company will fail doesn’t ever go away, not fully at least.
8. You fail so often you grow numb to it
9. Your failures have direct impact on people’s lives as well as their families.
10. You change roles so often you’re constantly inexperienced.
Things that surprise first time CEOs
1. It’s more stressful than they thought, particularly being responsible for a lot of employees
2. You’re the shit umbrella for all the company’s woes.
3. There’s no one to complain to (other than your cofounder)
4. If you’ve done it awhile, you’ve dealt w a big crisis or two
5. When you’re down, X and Reddit kick the shit out of you personally.
6. Even if your company isn’t 996, you are.
7. It’s not glamorous
What else?
JC retweeted
Read this before your next YC application.
Your chances go down exponentially if you do not understand this concept. 👇
fun frequent convo I've been having with founders in the a16z speedrun program we're running in LA for the next 12-weeks:
the clarity of a startup's story means clarity in their strategy. The story is the strategy.
On the other hand, a confusing, rambling story means that your approach is likely complex, incoherent, and unattractive. If you've ever had someone pitch you a product idea and then needed to ask question after question to understand what they're doing, you know what I mean.
This is a skill. It takes tremendous time and effort to pare back your startup's core ideas into a short series of truths, with strong local connections in between. The process of paring down the idea requires hardcore prioritization -- knowing what parts of the idea are core and must be done right away, and what parts are irrelevant, or can be done in the future. A clear narrative forces clarity in strategic tradeoffs.
It takes no skill to have massive complexity -- we can all brainstorm a ton of ideas, throw all the exciting trendy technologies into our idea, and make a go for it. But these messy stories reflect strategic indecision and avoidance. And the resulting unclear strategy will repel potential customers, investors, employees, and partners. They don't know who you are, or what you're really doing, because you don't either.
the best stories are a form of lossy compression, where they leave out 90% of the operational detail, but still hit the emotional and strategic truth. They ring true as soon as the words leave your mouth. And not because they are obvious statements -- after all, we get tired of hearing the same things -- but rather because they make observations on the reality of the world new way that cuts through the noise. They contain a "secret" that's surprising and compelling. The best narratives tap into feelings, not just logic.
the good news is that you can often figure this all out as you go. Founders and product builders are often are guided by the intuition of what they want to see in the world. Intuition might guide you towards a solid product, even if the initial story is a bit messy. And as you understand your customers' real world use cases, plus how your own customers describe your product, it can get easier to compress down all your ideas/observations/mistakes into a simpler expression of the idea.