Ho Nam retweeted
Agreed. We fell into the same pattern during the dotcom bubble. We were a feeder fund that backed companies that the best VCs funded at later stages. LPs were impressed because they couldn’t even get into those funds and they were buying in at much better prices with us. But we learned the hard way that the emperor has no clothes.
We went down a different path after the dotcom crash. Control your own destiny is a mantra that should apply to founders as well as smaller, early stage VCs. Don’t be a feeder fund. Find your own path and the LPs will eventually flock to you because you’ve not only beaten the big VCs but because you’ll still be around decades from now doing what you love doing, long after others have gone home.
Not sure if a billion dollar EV IPO can happen in US these days, which isn’t good for companies or investors. Another point is that traditional venture model can still work without needing $100B or even decacorn outcomes if ownership is meaningful and fund sizes are modest. The VC industry has moved away from what makes it special, having deep, early relationships with founders and companies.
This is quite an amazing pivot. Elice started as an EdTech company (teaching coding) and is now a profitable AI infrastructure company which just completed the largest tech IPO of the year on KOSDAQ. Extreme volatility (down and then back up 30%) in the first two trading days after pricing at the top of the range. Crazy times and there will be speculation and volatility but a great founder like Jaewon is committed to building a massive, global business over time. And now he has the capital to make it happen.
bloomberg.com/news/videos/20…
This is quite an amazing pivot. Elice started as an EdTech company (teaching coding) and is now a profitable AI infrastructure company which just completed the largest tech IPO of the year on KOSDAQ. Extreme volatility (down and then back up 30%) in the first two trading days after pricing at the top of the range. Crazy times and there will be speculation and volatility but a great founder like Jaewon is committed to building a massive, global business over time. And now he has the capital to make it happen.
bloomberg.com/news/videos/20…
Jess was a data skeptic when she joined us from a data company. Watching her change her mind with evidence is why I'd read this. Decades of investing have taught me that the best ideas sound early and a bit contrarian. Jess's piece on data is one of those. Starting skeptical and ending up all in. That's the kind of conviction I trust.
Check out my latest article: Twenty Years of Seeking Hedgehogs linkedin.com/pulse/twenty-ye… via @LinkedIn
Ho Nam retweeted
"Enduring growth is usually the result of hewing to a business fundamental: solid unit economics. That often requires intentionally slowing down, taking the time to build the right foundation, and only then scaling up." hbr.org/2026/11/the-risks-of…
Interesting observation by Jess who’s had deep exposure to at least two $1B+ revenue AI data companies (Mercor and AfterQuery).
Three reasons why the data industry is dominated by young people (<28), even more so than other large AI markets:
1. We are at the beginning of a supercycle and young people are unburdened by priors of what durable equity value looks like
2. Young people have time and energy, and data is intense (part of what makes it hard)
3. AI researchers and adjacent lab employees also skew young, and these relationships matter a lot
Agree with Oren’s comments that the current VC environment is creating companies growing in ways that are “unhealthy, unsustainable and in some cases not real” (fraud or borderline fraud). It won’t end well. People complaining about high valuations miss the point. The risk isn’t the price, it’s that most companies are being set up to fail. Zeros.
@orenzeev is one of most unique VCs. After a brief meeting with Peter Thiel, he decided to launch his own solo GP fund with Peter's help.
Today, he manages nearly $3B but remains a one-man shop. No associates, no assistants. In a world of consensus, he's anything but as he's lowered fund sizes, generally stayed away from the frothiest parts of AI, and continues to operate with a simple philosophy around founder selection.
One area we dug into is how many companies that are growing (2-3x per year) are largely ignored in the AI area (i.e. if you're not growing 5-10x, you are not "venture" fundable). In essence we are trading, in some cases durability of revenues for rapidity of growth. This seems like a great opportunity to buy strong, durable companies with good metrics at a relative discount to the rest of the market. For many in VC, the incentives point toward momentum and consensus, which is why I really enjoyed Oren's straightforward and principled approach.
Check out our conversation in the comments below.
"Enduring growth is usually the result of hewing to a business fundamental: solid unit economics. That often requires intentionally slowing down, taking the time to build the right foundation, and only then scaling up." hbr.org/2026/11/the-risks-of…
Ben has touched so many lives, and now he’s facing a tough fight against stage 4 cancer. This fundraiser is helping cover ongoing treatment costs that could give him more time with his family. The community has already shown incredible support, reaching over 150% of the goal, but every bit helps as he continues his journey. Please consider sharing or donating if you can—your support can make a real difference for Ben and his family during this difficult time. Let’s come together to help him fight and write a story of hope. gofund.me/cdaab2c83
I’ve often quoted @davidsenra who likes to say “time is the ultimate filter.”
Maybe after 20 years of investing in hedgehogs, we've turned into hedgehogs ourselves? There is a new @HarvardHBS case study entitled "Altos Ventures and Resilience." hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.a…
Ho Nam retweeted
Maybe after 20 years of investing in hedgehogs, we've turned into hedgehogs ourselves? There is a new @HarvardHBS case study entitled "Altos Ventures and Resilience." hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.a…
Maybe after 20 years of investing in hedgehogs, we've turned into hedgehogs ourselves? There is a new @HarvardHBS case study entitled "Altos Ventures and Resilience." hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.a…
When Charlie Munger passed away I read that he held $111M of Costco. Never sold a share since he joined the board in 1997. It’s impressive that he held so long but given his net worth, I was surprised he didn’t have more (since it was less than 5% of his net worth). He had such strong conviction. I wonder why he didn’t buy more. Anyone know?
This is so good because both are right. Constant innovation and speed is critical. And yet, Elon Musk didn’t dare take on See’s Candy in California, even after Buffett dared him to do it.
Warren Buffett told Elon Musk he wouldn't want to take him on in candy. Musk said he was super super serious about starting a candy company. Buffett's had already made over $2 billion on a $25 million bet.
It started on a Tesla earnings call. Musk said moats are lame. If your only defense against invading armies is a moat, you will not last long. What matters is the pace of innovation.
A moat is Buffett's word for whatever protects a business from competitors. A brand, low costs, loyal customers.
Days later the question was read to Buffett on stage in front of his shareholders. Is Elon right?
Charlie Munger went first. Warren does not intend to build an actual moat.
Buffett admitted that the pace has picked up and more moats are open to attack than before. You have to defend yours all the time.
He said Elon may turn things upside down in some areas. Then he added one line.
"I don't think he'd want to take us on in candy."
Berkshire owns See's Candies. Buffett bought it in 1972 for $25 million.
Musk fired back on Twitter. He was starting a candy company, and it was going to be amazing. Then he promised to build a moat and fill it with candy.
The candy company never happened.
See's has given Berkshire over $2 billion in pretax income, and it needed only about $40 million of investment along the way.
What protects a business better, a moat or the pace of innovation?
Follow me for more stories like this.
I'm speaking at Funders & Founders: State of the Venture Market on Oct 29 in Menlo Park. Come join if you're a founder, investor, or LP. Register: luma.com/fnt8th5l
Ho Nam retweeted
Yes, it’s crazy. Not because a zero is so scary to the VC. 1-2x has about the same impact to top tier VCs as a zero. But the e human cost is enormous. People who work at companies pay an enormous price for a zero. Not just for a founder who may view it as his life’s work but for every employee who are giving it their all at the prime of their lives. Also, for the VC personally a zero is much more stressful. It’ll burn people out. Saving the company has enormous satisfaction even if the financial outcome doesn’t move the needle.
Ho Nam retweeted
Wow, I sure have to disagree with this quote: "My goal as a venture-backed business is to increase the tails of the distribution. It's fine if it gets 30% more likelihood that I fail if the odds that I become a $100 billion company also increase by 20%." Great companies are the life's work of exceptional founders. They do NOT think about increasing the tails of distributions. Makes no sense to risk their life's work. They want to win and win BIG but they are not in a rush and will not put their life's work at risk to satisfy hitchikers who want to go along for the ride but will exit as soon as they hit their return targets.