in a world filled with ai decks, I'm spending a lot more time in places where it's easier to see slope:
👂customer discovery interviews & testimonials
✍️ posts on x / linkedin over a series of month (that maybe kind of sucked/got no love initially but the team posted anyways...& kept showing up)
👩💻 product demos (across multiple versions)
🤖 github repos
🧠 months / years of research / writing on a topic that a team couldn't stop thinking about
📧 investor updates
📍participation in relevant communities
👋🏽 how people show up irl (not saying go to every event fwiw)
great execution & velocity is still hard to manufacture.
@darrenmarble This misses the incentive gap. A Partner doesn't need a deal, but for an Associate, your win is their promotion. They’re way more incentivized to champion you. Plus, at many firms, Associates are running their own deals end-to-end now. Why ignore the hungriest person in the room?
I realize Former Gifted Kid posting is tiresome, but I do sometimes have a difficult time squaring who I was at 18 (national merit scholar, full academic scholarship, 5th in my class) with who I ended up being
@kejca Spotting a revolutionary industry isn’t enough—you need to pick the right businesses. Even the biggest trends can be wealth destroyers if economics don’t align.
I was mystified by this for a while too. But I have worked in a big company, as a PM in the cyber security space, long enough now to kinda get it.
When startups create innovative solutions that threaten existing markets, incumbents initially dismiss them. This isn't primarily about fear - it's about avoiding the urgency required to truly respond. Acknowledging a startup's potential means acknowledging you need to act quickly.
Large companies are resistant to urgency. They prefer comfortable inertia and criticism over action. Eventually though, someone in leadership (usually a VP who's seen an analyst report flagging the trend) orders their team to investigate.
Suddenly, the same people who ignored the startup start discovering its merits. They become incentivized to understand the disruption potential - whether it threatens their business, competitors, or creates new market opportunities altogether.
After they decide to do something about it they evaluate their internal resources & they realize they don't have enough to pursue this effectively. They don't have the number of people, the strategic vision, the specializations required (this is actually mega important and often totally over looked!).
Even if they did, spinning up a team would take 6+ months to get the right people, take them off other urgent items, run the hiring process, accidentally give some warning to competitors about what they are doing, and another 12+ months to get to feature parity with the startup—which by then would be 18 months ahead.
So they do what big companies do best: they buy. $32B for Wiz sounds crazy, but Google is buying: 1) immediate market position, 2) a proven team, 3) technology that works, and 4) 18-24 months of time-to-market advantage.
Building in-house is theoretically cheaper but almost never actually is when you factor in opportunity cost, internal politics, and the very real possibility of failure.
From my lived experiences.
Every single time I have had a doubt, a loss, a delay or closed door, it all worked out to benefit me, as protection or as something better for me waiting on the other side.
I don’t lose. I get shielded and I win.