Why seed investors are getting lazy about founder evaluation
“I at 40 to 50 post, which is becoming very common.”
I at 40 to 50 post, which is becoming very common. I probably don't wanna be in those either. So I do think there's a question of why would you, as a seed manager, compete for these things? I think most people have gotten very lazy on what constitutes a good founder in a world of more and more options, which the asset class has exploded, the number of founders has exploded, you tend to rely even more so on signals and rather than on actual kind of substance. For example,
About this clip
A VC argues that seed managers shouldn't compete for oversubscribed rounds at high post-money valuations. They critique how the explosion of both investors and founders has led to lazy evaluation processes that rely on superficial signals rather than substantive founder assessment.
Why this clip
This challenges conventional wisdom about competitive seed investing and calls out widespread lazy evaluation practices in the industry.
What they said next
VCs reveal the career-killing risk of making non-consensus bets
26:04 - 38s · contrarian take
More from this episode
Similar clips from other shows
From the blog
Want clips like this for your podcast?
We find your top 5-8 clips, write the hooks, and deliver ready-to-post content. First 2 episodes are free.
Get 2 Episodes Clipped Free