# The Truth About Multi-Stage Firms; Why Portfolio Services are for VCs not Founders Why Politics is Rife & Decision-Making is Broken in Large VCs · Why Reserves are Bad for Founders & How Boutique Firms Will Win with Mark Goldberg @ Chemistry 20VC · Oct 25, 2024 · 56 min · 12,386 words Speakers: Mark Goldberg, Harry Stebbings Source: https://www.996.fm/episodes/20vc--ep-b72a5014/ ## Cold open **Mark Goldberg** [0:00]: I think one of the dirty secrets of multisage investing is that portfolio services teams are not for founders. They're for the VCs. They are a way to make something unscalable scale. So we have a very light reserve model. Peanut buttering all of your reserves in every pro rata round that gets done is not a good thing for the founder. The biggest mistake is when you try to make consensus decisions at the early stage, I think you end up with consensus funds. **Harry Stebbings** [0:24]: This is 20 VC ## Intro **Harry Stebbings** [0:25]: with me, Harry Stebbings, and today we have a very special show for you. On Wednesday this week, we saw a new fund announcement in the form of Chemistry, a new $350,000,000 seed and series a firm from Mark Goldberg, Ethan Kurzweil, and Kristina Shen. Today, I sit down with Mark to unpack it all. For those that do not know, prior to Chemistry, Marc was a partner at Index Ventures where he led early stage investments in Plaid, Bridge, Pilot, Anrok, and Persona to name a few. But before we dive in, ## Sponsor read **Harry Stebbings** [0:54]: what do Henry Ford and have in common? Neither could change the world without automation. In the future, there will be two types of businesses, those that have automated and those that wish they had. UiPath, the undisputed leader in automation, is taking us into the era of agentic automation. UiPath's new AI agents don't just follow rules. They think, they make decisions, they work alongside the world's most powerful software robots already trusted by over 10,000 businesses. If Agenic Automation sounds new, just think of UiPath as more growth, not more overhead platform or happier customers, happier employees platform. Whatever you want AI to do for your business, Agenic Automation with UiPath will make it happen. Try UiPath's new AI agents for free at uipath.com. The future of automation is both agentic and robotic, so don't get left behind. And speaking of transforming your business with cutting edge technology, let's dive into another game changer, Atio. Atio is the next generation of CRM. Setting up Atio takes less than a minute, and in seconds of syncing your email and calendar, you'll see all of your relationships in one place, all enriched with very valuable data. Atio also lets you build Zapier style automations, gives you powerful reports, and works perfectly for any go to market motion from PLG to sales led. And Atio is designed for the next era of companies like yours, and companies like yours shouldn't have to deal with inflexible one size fits all CRMs. So join industry leaders like eleven Labs, Replicate, Modal, and more to scale your startup beyond the next level. Head over to ateo.com/20vc, and you'll get 15% off. That's 15% off your first year at ateo.com/20vc. And if ateo helps you stay ahead by streamlining your relationships and operations, now if you're looking to stay ahead on the investment side too, Fundrise's innovation fund is taking venture capital to a whole new level. It's a public venture fund anyone can invest in, not just institutions and accredited investors. The Fundrise Innovation Fund is democratizing venture capital, which could have big consequences for the industry. The fund is already off to a good start with a 100,000,000 into some of the largest, most in demand AI and data infrastructure companies. Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Databricks. Check out the Innovation Fund's impressive list of investments for yourself by visiting fundrise.com/20vc. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the innovation funds prospectus at fundraise.com/innovation. This is a paid partnership. You have now arrived at your destination. ## Conversation **Harry Stebbings** [3:48]: Mark, dude, I am so excited for this. When we last did one, I was actually young, so this is a joy. And, I really appreciate our friendship. So thank you for joining me. **Mark Goldberg** [3:58]: Harry, it's a total pleasure, and it has been so fun to watch you launch your new fund. I think I read online that it was a ten year overnight success, and I think that's what most resonated with me. You've been doing such a good job crushing it, and I'm I'm thrilled for you. So it's fun to be doing doing new funds at the same time. **Harry Stebbings** [4:14]: Dude, it is great for and there's nothing like having your own shop. I always say this to people, like, having your name above the door is the most special thing, and building your own is is just so special. I do just wanna start with that, which is like, there are so many venture firms, respectfully. Why did you feel like the world needed another one? And and what was that kind of realization with the founding of Chemistry? **Mark Goldberg** [4:35]: The world doesn't need another venture fund. It needs a new venture fund. There are too many VCs right now, but we wanted to do something different. What Kristina, Ethan, and I started talking about was if you were going to design a fund where you fully align the values of the investors with the founders, what would it look like? That was kind of the question that was the jumping point to getting started here. And what we thought about is first thought it would be smaller. It would be focus. It would be a combination of experienced investors from some of the biggest multi stage platforms coming together together, Avenger style and seeing if you could do something different. And you just talked about, you know, what it feels like to be an owner. I wanted that. Kristina and Ethan wanted that. And we felt like the combination of experience and hustle was something that would kind of be the blueprint for a new fund. So that was kind of the the origin of of how we started talking about this. **Harry Stebbings** [5:22]: Why does fund size correlate to alignment to founders? **Mark Goldberg** [5:26]: I don't necessarily think the fund size does. I think it's the purview of the responsibilities of the fund. So for us, having a stage focus, think is very important. I've seen, I think, what the growth of different products and the size of a portfolio does to the focus of an investor. And I think there's a paradox at a lot of the the larger legacy institutions where the most experienced VCs have the least amount of time to spend on new deals. And I think that's a problem for Founders. And that was something that we thought a lot about as we were debating whether or not we were going to jump into this and one of the things we thought we could help solve with with chemistry. **Harry Stebbings** [6:00]: Is that not just nature of a maturing portfolio that even if you are a Series A only investor at a multistage firm, if you're ten years in, two a year over a five year fuck. You've got 10 board seats there. **Mark Goldberg** [6:13]: The so absolutely. The the longer you're in market, the portfolio is like an iceberg. It just grows. And especially in an environment like today where liquidity is is not as readily available. That said, taking an axe to all the bureaucracy of a large institution gives you superpowers in terms of what you're able to do with your time. And so while the **Harry Stebbings** [6:31]: port What is the bureaucracy of a large institution? When you're running I **Mark Goldberg** [6:34]: think I think when you're running an organization that is that is hundreds of people, that is multinational, like many of the large funds are today, I think there's a lot of time spent on people management, on administrative work that has a that has a tax on the organization. When I think the most important thing is spending time with founders and spending time with founders at the early stage. **Harry Stebbings** [6:52]: They would say that they have incredible teams, and they have IR, and they have legal and accounting and portfolio services, which mean they are able to just be finding the next Dylan field. What do you say back to that? **Mark Goldberg** [7:05]: I would challenge the notion that when you talk about, for example, some of the portfolio services teams, I think one of the dirty secrets of multi stage investing is that portfolio services teams are not for founders, they're for the VCs. They are a way to make something unscalable scale. And I think right now, we're starting to see the cracks of an industry that has relied on subdivisions of the job, whether it's, you know, a talent team or a a team that's going out and finding customers. But I think what founders really want is not to be disintermediated between the relationship between an investor and the founder. That's really the premise of our fund and one of the things that I think that some of the industry has gotten wrong. Now, would also clarify, I don't think it started that way. I think the intention and if you go back to the innovation from ten, fifteen years ago when Andreessen Horowitz started, it was a great idea. It was this sense of, you know, excitement and innovation for venture. But I think where we are now is it's become more of a crutch to these organizations to try to get leverage in an area that's very difficult to do. **Harry Stebbings** [8:03]: I think it's also used as a justification for the increase in fund size because now you can show the LPs, well, we've got 10 people in talent, 10 in BD. We even do sales for our companies, in which case we need the new huge fund because this is how we've structured our team. **Mark Goldberg** [8:17]: I think what founders really want is a direct relationship with with an experienced investor. **Harry Stebbings** [8:21]: You said it kind of like, what would it be if it was, like, true alignment between GP and founder? Sounded so nice. So do you guys only take common shares then? I'm being serious. I'm I'm I can be deliberately spicy with you. You're my friend. You **Mark Goldberg** [8:35]: can absolutely be you know, I I think when we think about alignment, it's more about putting the incentives in in terms of where you're spending time. One of the things that pulled us into starting New Fund, and I bet you saw this as you were kind of going through your your fundraisers as well, is this sense from founders that we want experienced investors that have time to spend with us. We want something new and fresh ecosystem, and I think that's a lot of what we're we're trying to bring here. **Harry Stebbings** [8:59]: Do you know what? As I get older, Marc I'm sorry. It's the end of the day on a Friday, dude. Like, no. I I actually I take the key through a boy's school of thought, which is like the best founders don't need you. I say to founders, listen. Generally, 90% of VCs don't really add value. I try to be no different, but I'm a really nice guy. I will always have more money for you, and I have the world's best network. Other than that, in Charlotte, but I will never be a bad investor for you, and I'm super supportive. So I think they love that. It's like, just don't get in my way. Give me fucking money and shut up. That's what they want. **Mark Goldberg** [9:33]: Well, first off, I think that you would clear the bar for, you know, 80% of the industry by doing no harm, and I would agree with that principle. The other thing that I would agree with is that the later stages, that's all that matters. When you're doing it, when you're picking what growth investor you want to work with, what you should care about is the price and them staying out of your way. I would disagree with you at the early stages. And my experience over almost a decade of doing this is that there are times, even the best founders who are running autonomously, where and I actually there's a concept that we, one of my great mentors, Mike Volpe, talked about magic moments for a founder journey, where it's not about placing the IC employee 142, the resume in the right spot of the company. It's about building a relationship where when the founder is questioning, hey, I'm not sure if I'm working with my co founder and they want to call you at 11PM on a Saturday night, you pick up the phone and you you're there for that person. And when that company does well and they remember like what were the important moments in my founder journey, I think those are the things they think about. So I I I would disagree with you at the early stages. I do think building that sort of trusted relationship is is ultimately what makes an excellent investor. Though I would say a great investor might just be do no harm. **Harry Stebbings** [10:40]: I agree with you. I think there's this is one of those ones where there's nuance because you're speaking from Silicon Valley and I'm speaking from Europe. Our competitive sets and landscapes are very different. I guess my question to you is, when you looked at that landscape, why were you like, oh, yes. We should be here. **Mark Goldberg** [10:57]: You know, when I joined Index Ventures almost a decade ago, you know, the pitch that I would give to founders when I didn't have a brand or a portfolio was I'm gonna out hustle anybody else. And I remember some early deals where I would be going head to head with the equivalent of a lot of girl from ten years ago. And a founder would say, why would I choose you? You're an associate, you have no experience. I would say that's my advantage. My advantage is that your success matters so much to me that if this doesn't work, I don't have a job anymore. And that pitch didn't always work. I lost a bunch of deals, but I won a bunch of deals as well because they're different products. That choice is good for founders. Our view with Chemistry is that the idea of having a small team, clean slate, this playing offense at a moment where many people are distracted is a really interesting idea for for founders that want that that kind of relationship. And that's actually why we named the Fund Chemistry. **Harry Stebbings** [11:44]: I think the younger the founder, the more they want the brand is the lesson that I have. Different to what people think, people think younger people will take a new firm, younger people. They crave the brand more. I find the second tier cereal founders have had the multi stage product before. They've seen that it's not all it's cracked up to be, and they actually go for the person the second time around. Do you agree or am I missing that? **Mark Goldberg** [12:06]: I I agree with the framework, though I don't think it's the age. I think it's the the relationship to kind of insider outsider in Silicon Valley. If you're coming into the ecosystem and you don't really know a lot of venture, what you're thinking about is the big brands, the Andreessen's, the Kleiner Perkins, the Sequoias, and you should. Those are the names that are household names that if you stopped a founder on the streets of Austin or Portland, you know, those are what you're gonna hear about. To me, it's less about the age and more about kind of the proximity to your kind of networks. **Harry Stebbings** [12:34]: Doug Leone said to me or I think it was on a show. He said that the, you know, venture has transitioned from a high margin boutique community to a low margin commoditized industry. Do you agree with that transition? **Mark Goldberg** [12:49]: Well, first off, that's really interesting for somebody who is leading one of the multistage the most successful multistage funds, and god bless Sequoia. I mean, their ability to innovate as a leader, I don't envy that challenge. I have always enjoyed being a challenger and punching in that direction. So for him to say that is very interesting. **Harry Stebbings** [13:05]: Their funds are relatively constrained for what they do. Like, their seed fund is a 190. I think their growth is, like, a billion. Like, they're not crazy. They they they are always collated in this, like, Sequoia raises 8,000,000,000, and you're like, wow. But actually, when you look at it, they are quite constrained products. **Mark Goldberg** [13:23]: So what I would say is I think the direction of the industry and you I'm I'm sure everybody who observes the industry would say the same thing, has been one of industrialization in the last decade. And when I say industrialization, what I mean is the boutique experience of, hey, there's gonna be a handful of partners, you're gonna know everybody there and their reputations is not really that that was kind of the past and the future seems to be this sense of, you know, let's increase the AUM, let's increase the team sizes. And I would challenge even you Harry to say at some of these big platforms name more than three, four or five partners when there might be 30 check writers. So that's what industrialization means to me is when you you know the name, the brand of the of the institution, but you might not know who the check writers are. But **Harry Stebbings** [14:03]: is Chemistry a like a reversion away from that industrialization back to boutique ness? **Mark Goldberg** [14:09]: That's exactly right. It's a contrarian thought right now. Inspired by funds like Benchmark, like USB, we think that there is this kind of personal relationship at the early stage that we're gonna try to reconstitute the fund around. **Harry Stebbings** [14:22]: So how big is the fund? The fund's 350,000,000. How did you come to 350,000,000 being the right sized fund? And stage wise, this is seed and a? **Mark Goldberg** [14:31]: That's it's seed and a. It's lead checks at seed and a. And it was really a bottoms up exercise. We thought about what is the right pacing for each each GP. And for us, when we looked at our investment history over the last ten to fifteen years, it was about two to three investments per year. There were years that, you know, in 2021, I did far more and you know, which was the wrong, decision at that point. But when we looked at what was the right number, it was about two or three investments per year. And that's how we built the fund, is that's about the pace that each GP should have in the fund. It's about a three year fund and we'll have, you know, about 25 investments in each fund. **Harry Stebbings** [15:03]: Do you think it's big enough for the a? Because if you think about Series A funds, okay, if we take average Series A check, we're like, say, 10 to 15,000,000. Let's say 15 to be considered. 15 fifteens for 300 minus fees, that's your fund done. Not enough diversification and no seeds in that. **Mark Goldberg** [15:21]: So this will be a seed in Series A fund. And I think when you say A, you have to be careful because when you say a, it's like, what does that mean? I would argue, you know, I'm seeing a **Harry Stebbings** [15:28]: If you're doing if you're doing ILIA from OpenAI, it means a $10,000,000,000 check. **Mark Goldberg** [15:32]: It means you're gonna need to raise a much larger fund. But even if you exclude the the handful of, billion dollar Series A AI deals, you know, I think, I'm seeing deals in the market that are 30 to $40,000,000 Series A's. And I think one thing you have seen or I've observed in the industry is that A's that would have been 15,000,000, you know, five years ago could be 30 to 40,000,000 today. So when you talk about us doing a 30 we could do that from our fund, but it would be a very big swing. What we're looking at is, I would say a click in front of that where it's not totally obvious that there's a category winner, you know, we are gonna have to roll up our sleeves before there's obvious financial traction. There's more risk at that point but we think we can do some earlier kind of series a's. So almost the concept of a series a series a, I would argue, is it depends, you know, what you're talking about. **Harry Stebbings** [16:16]: So what size check is that? **Mark Goldberg** [16:17]: I think a 10 to $15,000,000 lead series a check is a very reasonable thing if you're willing to go a click earlier in terms of stage. **Harry Stebbings** [16:23]: But does that work in terms of portfolio construction? Because with that's on assuming no reserves. You just don't have enough. **Mark Goldberg** [16:31]: So we have a very light reserve model that might be worth clicking on. I think that the way that as a new fund we think about reserves is we believe that supporting companies from those early stages is extremely important. But that peanut buttering all of your reserves and every pro rata round that gets done is not a good thing for either the founder or the LPs in a fund. And so we have a very light reserve model. We will double down on companies where there's, you know, exceptions, but we have a very light reserve model. **Harry Stebbings** [16:58]: I spoke to one of your LPs before, and they were like, oh, well, like, they're they're not competing against their old shops because they're going a little bit before. And I was like, I compete with all of their shops, and I do pre seed. So they are competing. How do you think about that? **Mark Goldberg** [17:13]: First off, we're gonna be competing we're gonna be competing with everybody. And that's fine. I mean, this is an industry where you're both working with people on one deal and competing against them in the next. But we are certainly gonna be competing tooth and nail in every deal that we're we're in. But we think that's a great thing for founders. Founders should have choice. **Harry Stebbings** [17:29]: Do you worry about the expanded round sizes? Something that I am genuinely just concerned about right now is, like, the amount of $8,000,000 seed rounds where I'm having to stump up six for not a huge amount of traction at a pretty high price, and that's kind of becoming the norm. **Mark Goldberg** [17:45]: I think you have to play the game on the field. And the question is, are there good companies that are emerging right now in this vintage? I would say yes. Now are there ridiculous deals happening that I don't think fit the risk return profile for you or for me? Absolutely. But I think around that, there's plenty of work to do. **Harry Stebbings** [18:01]: How do you determine when to pay up versus when to sit it out? Like, when it's just not a chemistry deal? The answer to that. I I look at, like, my biggest mistakes this year have been Sueno and eleven Labs. And both of them I didn't do because they were small checks, probably, like, 1% each, and that didn't fit the model. That was my lack of mental plasticity. **Mark Goldberg** [18:23]: One of the lessons I learned from Index Ventures and certainly two of my mentors, Mike Volpe, Ilya Fishman was you wanna be in the category winner. And when you need to pay up to be in a category winner, you know, you don't wanna be in the number two or the number three in category. And there are times when I'm willing to take risk in that direction. Your risk is the valuation, but you feel extreme conviction in the, you know, the leader in a in a category. That's in time when I'm willing to kind of stretch. The other time, Harry, just before you jump in and really the way I think about early stage investing, is so much of a founder focus of do I have insane conviction in this individual, in this founding team? And when those variables line up, I tend to feel more confidence in my ability to kind of stretch on the deal price in terms. **Harry Stebbings** [19:05]: Totally agree. Taking one by one, you said about kind of the importance of being the category winner. I so agree with you that it's like the 95% to 15% to everyone else in the market. Constantly oscillating. I don't like competitive markets, but then I consistently hear people say the best markets are competitive because there is incredible value at the end of them. How do you think about market competition? Do you like competitive markets or not competitive markets? And how do you think about my statement? **Mark Goldberg** [19:31]: I don't mind competitive markets. I think so much about ideas are a dime a dozen. You wanna find people that are excellent at execution and that have the vision to outcompete the folks in their market. I have never shied away from competitive markets. What I lean into is a founder who is willing to go head to head in a competitive market and I believe has the chutzpah to go win it. So for me, a competitive market validates the opportunity and is not something that I shy away from. **Harry Stebbings** [19:55]: You said about execution being everything that I so agree with you, dude. What are the reasons why from zero to one, execution goes wrong most often you see? **Mark Goldberg** [20:04]: To me, it's the founding team. I think that no company I've been a part of from the early days has been a straight line success. Everybody takes a punch in the face. And the founders that have the grit to take the punch in the face and get back up are the ones that I think have the highest correlation of going from zero to one and ultimately from one to a public company. I think a lot about not do they miss their OKR by 30%, you know, this quarter and therefore this isn't gonna work. No. It's is this somebody who's resilient enough to take the adversity to learn from it and the velocity of their learning is ultimately what crosses the chasm? **Harry Stebbings** [20:35]: Well, I mean, had Zach from Plaid on the show and he said that OKRs at the early stage were just bullshit entirely. So **Mark Goldberg** [20:40]: I think he said that OKR it was a great episode. And I think was saying, why were they lifted from the manufacturing industry and plopped down into the software world? And I would very much agree with that. **Harry Stebbings** [20:48]: What are the reasons why execution breaks most post product market fit? You've worked with some incredible companies post. **Mark Goldberg** [20:55]: Post product market fit, I think hiring is is probably the biggest limitation I've seen. When you were an early stage and this is where, you know, going back to our conversation on what is the value out of a VC, you know, again, do no harm should be beating 80% of the industry, but I wouldn't agree with your zero. So I think that every stage and when you go when you when you you feel the pull of product market fit, you need to really consider who are the leaders of your functions, especially your go to market functions and are they the right people? And when you move from founder led sales into a professional organization, really asking yourself, do I have the right people in those seats? And back to the point of, you know, what can a VC do to be helpful? Showing people what great looks like, one, two, three stages in front of where they are and giving them a way to evaluate where their team is relative to that, I think is a very helpful thing. And the folks that I've seen take longer to get from that one to ten, ten to a 100 are the folks that tend to make the wrong decisions around hiring in their leadership teams. And by the way, I'm very bullish on their leaders, and I can give you examples, that have scaled from the early days all the way to, you know, an exit. It's unusual, but it's possible. But I think having a way to give founders a a sense of this is what great looks like for your stage and these functions that you might not have seen before is a very important thing for them. **Harry Stebbings** [22:05]: So I would say pre product market fit also everyone forgets how long hiring takes. It takes three to six months to find the person, three to six months to round them, and then 50% of the time, three to six months to fire them. And you've got eighteen months and you've still got nowhere. And that's why I prefer Cereal Founders because they have an existing network. They've worked with Marc before. They know how Marc works. Sign Marc next week. He onboards a week later. Job done, and he's fully ramped by week four. Now I then have so many people say, but the naivety, the brilliance of first time founders. How do you I'm forcing you to pick one. Which one and why? **Mark Goldberg** [22:40]: First time founders. I think the the ability to to think from a a clean slate to do potentially foolish, but on the other side, potentially visionary and transformative things. The hunger, the naivety that you describes in a first time founder, think outweigh a lot of the benefits of having seen the show from one, two, three times in the past. There are caveats. I love founders that have tried and not broken through with a first business. So a founder who feels like they gave it a shot but ended in a place that they weren't happy with and they have a chip on their shoulder, I think is a great profile. A founder who has done so well that, you know, they are financially independent or they might not have the same level of hunger that they brought to their first business. I'm less excited about that. **Harry Stebbings** [23:24]: Founders should not choose chemistry if they want dot dot dot. **Mark Goldberg** [23:29]: If they want an established brand that's been around for thirty to fifty years. Do you think that's still worthy? I think different founders want different things. You know, you and I talked about earlier in the conversation, a founder that is coming new to Silicon Valley that really wants the validation of a, you know, of an established fund that's been around, we're probably not a great fit for. **Harry Stebbings** [23:45]: For founders listening, does the established brand I don't think the established brand helps with hiring because I think it helps with hiring the wrong type of people. You want people who love the founder, love the team, love the mission, not love the fact that a big brand is in there. Does it help with customers? **Mark Goldberg** [23:59]: I don't think it helps with customers. I think it helps with funding. You know, when Sequoia does a deal, there's gonna be money that follows That's great. That's a feature of the brand equity they've built over a long period of time. **Harry Stebbings** [24:08]: Tell me, when you were doing the fundraise, how did you organize it? I know that sounds strange, but did you go to friends and family style first, people you knew who were super high likelihood, or did you go for the anchors big names first to solidify the base? Which approach? **Mark Goldberg** [24:25]: I think we tapped a rich vein in the LP community that there was some frustration, especially at this point in the cycle. Some of the venture funds that they had invested in ten years ago, twenty years ago, they felt like had become asset managers. And the idea of being able to invest in a pure play venture fund that had experience, but also a lot of hustle was something that we think resonated in the market. I So think we were fortunate that we we kinda hit a market moment in the fundraise that that aligned with a lot of the the zeitgeist in that community. When did you start the race? Like, what type of time of year? We raised this summer, so we went out from kinda June to August was our fundraise. **Harry Stebbings** [24:59]: It's pretty quick. And in summer, it's even quicker. **Mark Goldberg** [25:01]: We were very fortunate. I think, again, we were, you know, tapping into some real excitement about a team that you know, I don't think there's a team of experienced GPs that's come together with three folks in quite some time, and I think that was something novel. And again, at a time where the macro backdrop was a little bit of frustration with how big some of the multistage funds, the legacy institutions have become. And this sense that the returns you saw ten, fifteen years ago from small teams and focused partnerships may not be the same going forward. **Harry Stebbings** [25:28]: What size of check was the largest check? **Mark Goldberg** [25:31]: We wanted to keep enough diversity in the fund where we didn't get anybody, you know, kind of much over 10%. That was kind of where we adhered to. So we wanted about 20 LPs, and that's that's pretty close to where we landed. **Harry Stebbings** [25:41]: In terms of, like, LP construction, was there anything specifically that you wanted? I find some managers get a bit wanky about like, oh, we won't take family offices. **Mark Goldberg** [25:49]: No. We wanted good people. I feel like I have learned so much about being an investor from going through a fundraise. **Harry Stebbings** [25:55]: What did you learn about tell me, what did you learn? **Mark Goldberg** [25:58]: So I mean, so many things. I feel first off, I feel like every VC should have to fundraise just to be table stakes as a VC. And in some ways, I think my order of operation was wrong where I invested for almost a decade before becoming a founder. I I I wish though it would have been difficult to have done in the opposite direction, but some of the learnings. So first off, there was so much empathy from having to pitch. For a decade, I heard thou you know, I sat on one side of the table and heard the pitches and to be forced to feel the pressure of stepping into a room with everybody's eyes on you and you need to deliver. It's something everybody should do at, you know, at some regular interval to kind of balance the equilibrium of power. And I think don't know if you felt the same way, Harry, when you were fundraising, but for me, I felt tremendous empathy for that. And I'll just give you an example. When you're pitching somebody, this is one of many meetings to them, and this is the most important meeting of your day. I mean, for me, there were a handful of of of meetings like that. And I have **Harry Stebbings** [26:47]: I have one meeting where I just couldn't stop sweating. And then it's just the most awful thing in a big meeting room with, like, 12 people, and you're standing at the front, and you're like, oh. And everyone knows you're sweating, it's like, oh. **Mark Goldberg** [27:02]: Well, as we know, it it didn't hurt your ability to do, you know, something incredible with your own fundraise. And in some ways, hope to give you a perspective. So when a founder is sweating in front of you, you have that empathy. And that's that's a lot of what I felt, the sense of, you know, oh, okay. This is a really helpful reminder of what it takes to to really put yourself in the shoes of a founder. Did you **Harry Stebbings** [27:21]: raise money only from people you met in person? Were there any checks which were non which were virtual checks? **Mark Goldberg** [27:27]: That is a very good question, and I think that we met everybody in person. Now we because we're in San Francisco, a lot of people were coming through for different LP events. So there was a lot of kind of the community move through, but we hustled too. We spent a lot of time on planes and we I mean, we were we were out there. It was a quick fundraise but we were out there hustling very hard. There were some by the way, it's a great way to get to know your co founders better. When we're we're in equal partnership, all three of us were were telling our story. It's kind of like a group interview and poor Kristina and Ethan who had to suffer through me telling the same jokes and anecdotes over and over and over, sometimes eight, ten times a day. **Harry Stebbings** [28:03]: Well, that there's the Tokyo test. I don't know if you know this. I don't know this. Okay. The Tokyo test is, can you fly to Tokyo with someone and being engaged fully in conversation throughout the duration of the flight? And if you can, that is either the sign that you should marry them or start a company with them. **Mark Goldberg** [28:19]: We did many, many tests throughout the relationship and the founding story of the three of us. The Tokyo test was not on there. **Harry Stebbings** [28:25]: How many LP meetings did you take? We probably took a 100 LP meetings. 100 LP meetings. **Mark Goldberg** [28:30]: Yeah. Now we divided and conquered, and the the other thing is we we tried to vet those meetings by first screening for the appetite for a first fund. There was I think I think a lot of interest, in a shiny object to say, you know, I want to go meet this team and we we tried to to weed that out by saying, you know, what are what are some first time funds you've done? If you haven't done anything in last two years, you're probably not going be excited you know, about doing doing things. So we did a lot of pre screening but we actually got to probably a 100 meetings. **Harry Stebbings** [28:58]: Okay. So you have a 100 meetings and so you have like 20 yeses for people who don't understand fundraising. **Mark Goldberg** [29:03]: So we were fortunate in that we were we were pretty well oversubscribed. So it ended up being more more than 20 yeses and I think we could have raised a fund significantly larger than the one we raised. That said, we got a lot of no's as well. I mean part of the LP community and understanding is what are they interested in? And if we walked into a meeting and they said our belief in the asset class is that you know, venture is no longer a good return or the only way to play venture is to be in, you know, five legacy brands. We probably had done a poor job in vetting that meeting and there were a handful of those that we did not have success with. **Harry Stebbings** [29:34]: Okay. So you have a 100 and then say we end up with 20 there and they can what was the number one reason in commonality wise why people said no? **Mark Goldberg** [29:42]: Well, you know, it's it's an interesting parallel to why we say no as GPs. And again, to the empathy point, think a lot of the reasons people gave as a no were not the actual reasons, but the the biggest reason we heard was the three of you haven't worked together. And there's a lot of teamwork team risk in a new fund at this size with three people. And to their to their credit, there is risk. I feel very comfortable with that risk. You know, in the same way that a VC might say it's too early for our fund. You never really know what people are thinking. **Harry Stebbings** [30:08]: Did you push back when you felt like they weren't giving you the right feedback? Well, I I, of course, got notes, and I, of course, got kind of bullshit ones. And I would always say, like, I really appreciate your desire to protect my feelings, but I really want to get better above everything else. Please tell me the real reason why you said no. **Mark Goldberg** [30:24]: We did. Yeah. And we got some great I mean, again, back to the parallels of l being a good LP is very similar to being a good GP. The funds that we most liked working with, whether or not they invested or not, were clear, direct, communicative, gave real feedback. It's a good lesson for me. It's a good lesson for anyone on the GP side and again why I would encourage anybody to go through a fundraise like we did. You know, when we tell our friends what are the best LPs, it wasn't the ones that necessarily all said yes to our fund. It was the ones that were great to work with and they were great to work with for the reasons. They gave great feedback. They were very sophisticated on their perspective in the market. Whether or not we aligned with that vision, you know, that was what made a great LP and I think ultimately what makes a great GP. **Harry Stebbings** [31:02]: What was the single best LP meeting that you had? **Mark Goldberg** [31:05]: We did have some funny stories from the fundraise itself. And at one point, I remember Kristina was having what I thought was her best fundraising meeting. She's just, you know, really doing a nice job with her talking points. And I look over and she's and she's, you know, laughing and having fun. I look over and it's it's 09:00 in the morning and instead of a seltzer water we had we had, know, we're borrowing somebody's off it is, she had grabbed a White Claw instead. And so she's drinking her second White Claw thinking that she's drinking seltzer water. And, you know, we had a few things like that where, you know, you just kinda have to laugh in hindsight. And we had to tell her afterwards, you know, we didn't wanna stop the train at that point, but we had to tell her she wasn't drinking, you know, something that was, that was seltzer water. Mark, did you have any terrible ones? The terrible ones were more misalignment, I would say, where we would get into a meeting and someone would ask us to pitch venture capital as an asset class. We had one or two of those where it was like, why is this asset class still worth investing in? That was more, again, an alignment challenge where if you're starting from that question, we're probably not in the right conversation, and we did have a few of those. **Harry Stebbings** [32:06]: Did you find one group more sophisticated, intelligent than others? Foundations, endowments, family offices. **Mark Goldberg** [32:13]: One of the best piece of advice we got was build a diverse set of LPs and not in terms of the institutions you just described, fund to fund, family office, endowments and foundations, but people that think differently and think independently. And that's why I think we ended up with such an interesting mix of people that we we almost didn't want people to to correlate with one another. And I think it would have been very easy to do and for people that that go this route, where there's a lot of correlation between, hey, these are all alumni of the same institution and so they're gonna group things together. We wanted to avoid that and I think we're very fortunate we were able to. **Harry Stebbings** [32:48]: I'm gonna push you. What single LP check meant the most to get to you personally? **Mark Goldberg** [32:53]: So we had a few groups that told us this is gonna be a six month process. You know, there's no way to accelerate it. And after the meeting, we're kinda done in two weeks. And we loved that kind of speed to conviction and that meant a lot. Some of those early conviction checks where, you know, we weren't sure exactly how long the fundraise would take and having a few people say like, we believe so much in what you're doing. We're gonna make exceptions to do this quickly and to get behind you. **Harry Stebbings** [33:17]: What was your most recent disagreement as a partnership? **Mark Goldberg** [33:20]: Well, this wasn't the most recent disagreement, but a really substantive disagreement was about whether or not to build a junior team at Chemistry. That was a Where did that **Harry Stebbings** [33:30]: where did that net out? **Mark Goldberg** [33:31]: We are doing it, but I'll give you some of the color around it. So I came in with more perspective that we need to be extremely streamlined. You know, having a a GP only group is going to be an advantage in terms of the the ecosystem. I think Ethan and Kristina had a much stronger feeling that that working with with the junior team is going to add an element and a dynamic element in terms of different ages, different networks that's really going to complement the GPs. What all of us were aligned in not wanting to recreate was the hierarchy, an institution, and bureaucracy of a really large organization. So what we netted out to is just a very small junior team. We're gonna have two folks. We've hired one so far who's fantastic and already making a massive impact on the fund. But that was something we really needed to unpack and and try to think about the pros and cons. **Harry Stebbings** [34:14]: Are you doing office? Are you doing remote? How are **Mark Goldberg** [34:17]: In office every day is a really important tenet of how we think about building. You know, we're a new team. We're a startup. Right? Like, we need to be shoulder to shoulder. **Harry Stebbings** [34:25]: If you could choose anyone to join as the fourth partner, who would you choose and why them? **Mark Goldberg** [34:30]: Some of the folks that I respect immensely are the Excel venture team, Dan Levine, Vasantharajan, some of the folks that I would describe as similar age to the three of us. They're, you know, that are doing a tremendous job in the ecosystem. There are some funds that I would consider new guard funds a little bit in front of us. I think Sarah Guo has done a tremendous job with conviction. Jack Altman doing amazing things with Alt Capital. It's probably the most dynamic moment in twenty years in venture where you have these legacy institutions that are dealing with generational change, you know, huge portfolios. **Harry Stebbings** [35:01]: Fund investing is like a company investing in a couple of ways. One, the best fund managers are like the best founders. They make you feel a little bit uncomfortable with their intensity. And then, you know, second, there needs to be a why now. There needs to be a moment in the ecosystem that causes this company or fund to be more exciting today than it was yesterday, and I completely share the perspective there. I do worry there's just too much money in this ecosystem, though. I lost a deal this week, and I lost it because the competition doubled the price and accepted common shares. **Mark Goldberg** [35:29]: Yeah. I think both can be true. I think there can both be a shakeout that is already happening in terms of the amount of dollars, and I think there can be a turnover between an old guard and a new guard. And I think you and some other funds I respect represent that next chapter and what a new guard but I think there's a moment. And I don't think that moment existed three years ago, five years ago, even ten years ago, and I think it's happening now. **Harry Stebbings** [35:48]: Are you worried by the extended window of privatization by great, great founders like the Collisons continuously being private for years and years and years? **Mark Goldberg** [35:57]: No. I'm not. First off, I think products will evolve to create liquidity for those late stage private companies that give liquidity options to early stage investors. So I think the market will evolve. So just because companies are staying private longer doesn't mean I think the liquidity duration will be as long as it is today. I think we'll be we'll see innovation in that area. So there'll be more secondary opportunities for early stage invest I mean, my my belief is the capital markets will will create new products to solve for that. I do think that you need to have a long term outlook in this industry. And even when when I started fundraising, I thought the duration of a fund was ten years, and I was surprised to learn that many of the LPs said we rarely see closed funds before 15. Just you have to have kind of the stomach to be in this for a long time. **Harry Stebbings** [36:38]: Have you had your first carry check yet? I have. When did you get it? What year? **Mark Goldberg** [36:43]: So I was very fortunate to join the venture industry at the end of twenty fifteen, early twenty sixteen, and I'm very grateful to have been at a at a fund that that did really well in those vintages and was able to get some liquidity. So I'm fortunate that I I've seen that. **Harry Stebbings** [36:56]: Okay. I'm gonna make a statement. You can agree or not. I don't think many of the 2021 vintage funds will return one x. Agree or disagree? **Mark Goldberg** [37:03]: It's a very what I would say is I don't think those funds will do very well. I mean, the the vintage is gonna be very, very challenged. Will it be a one x? I don't know. I think it'll be better than a one x. Maybe they're gonna be tough funds. **Harry Stebbings** [37:14]: What happens to all the companies that are marked up insanely highly with insane valuations by many of the multistage funds and are worth 2,000,000,000, 3,000,000,000, not 10,000,000,000? **Mark Goldberg** [37:25]: Well, I think we're already seeing some of the oxygen being sucked out of those companies. I think, you know, as you talk about your frustration with founders choosing to kind of raise at terms that feel unreasonable, I think we're seeing the other side of that, which is many companies wish that they've taken a more graduated approach to their fundraising Because the momentum, the cultural momentum and I I've got some companies that that have been very thoughtful in this and deliberate in this effort. The momentum you lose when a fund when the employees know that the valuation isn't realistic, I think really hurts the morale and hurts the ability of the company to kind of do its best work. So I think really deliberate founders that don't overstretch actually, you know, you're kind of seeing the advantage of that, but everybody has to kind of go their own path. **Harry Stebbings** [38:05]: I kind of have this new approach, which is I say, listen, I will let you choose the price. And they're like, what? And I'm like, there's just one clause. Whatever price you choose, you have to be 90% confident that you can three x that by the time you're gonna raise your next. And if you don't, I'm gonna be pissed. **Mark Goldberg** [38:23]: Yep. How's that working for you? **Harry Stebbings** [38:24]: Honestly, founders love it. **Mark Goldberg** [38:28]: Are you seeing bigger or smaller numbers than you expected? Smaller. I mean, that's amazing. **Harry Stebbings** [38:33]: Is that like, oh, shit. The 25, I don't know if we'll be 75 when we're 1,000,000 in ARR. Especially at seed, I'm seeing the 20 fives go to fifteens because they're like, could do 45 Yeah. But really confidently predicting 80. **Mark Goldberg** [38:48]: Yeah. I mean, I think it at least changes the the tone of the conversation from one of this is a zero sum game where the valuation is a reflection of my self worth and and kind of a scoreboard win to one of let's put this in the perspective of a long term journey. So I think it's, you know, I think it's a really interesting framing you're giving to founders of let's think about this in a different way. **Harry Stebbings** [39:05]: I'm not literally letting them choose the price. No. **Mark Goldberg** [39:08]: Of course of course. But it's a little bit of mental jujitsu, which I will, I will think hard on. **Harry Stebbings** [39:12]: How do you think about investing in AI today? Given rounds being the sizes that they are, being the competition being what it is, How do you think about that? **Mark Goldberg** [39:21]: So I think we're already seeing the oxygen in this bubble start to get sucked out. Now, obviously, are exceptions. There's still some extremely unreasonable deals happening within AI. But I think what's starting to happen is **Harry Stebbings** [39:33]: What makes you say that we're seeing the auction sucked out because I don't I don't see that. **Mark Goldberg** [39:37]: I think that just calling yourself a dot AI company is no longer attacking the same premium onto your business as it would have a year and a half ago. And the people that were the same camp of founders that were a dot x y z during the crypto boom that have migrated to .ai for the AI boom are starting to recognize that they actually need a sustainable business and that's what they're gonna be evaluated on. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't rounds happening at the, you know, the red hot center of the AI infrastructure ecosystem. But I do think they're starting to you're starting to see some pullback and some some proportionality brought back into the other side of the market. It doesn't sound like you're seeing that by the way you looked at me. **Harry Stebbings** [40:13]: No. Honestly, I see it being more crazy than ever. Mean, I've I've met three companies that raised at north of seven fifty pre product. How do you structure decision making as a new firm? **Mark Goldberg** [40:22]: So we are a single trigger model, which means that any one of the three of us can make a decision on an investment and go with Now, the biggest mistake that I have seen from my own personal experience and from other funds is when you try to make consensus decisions at the early stage, I think you end up with consensus funds. And I think it's the errors of omissions at the early stage where one person or two people have super strong conviction in an idea that end up being the outliers. If you think about the outliers, you're going to get, you know, when you open the aperture, when you've got kind of the decision framework that I just described, you're going get both. You're gonna get deals that don't do as well, but I think you're also gonna solve for the extremes that do very well. And that was the model that we we landed on. **Harry Stebbings** [41:01]: You mentioned the sin of a mission. What mess weighs on your mind most? **Mark Goldberg** [41:06]: Chime. I I really love that business. From a fintech perspective, it was one where, you know, I would love to have been a part of the early stage rounds and and kudos to the folks that that figured that earlier than I did. **Harry Stebbings** [41:17]: Why is Chime a third the size of Revolut in a market that's five times bigger? **Mark Goldberg** [41:22]: I think nobody has really cracked the the product velocity that Revolut has. I mean, Revolut's product velocity is is just unparalleled in really any market at this point, including New Bank. And, you know, you could argue The US is a harder market to differentiate on features, but Revolut has had a superpower and, you know, they just move so quickly in terms of the breadth of products they're able to offer its customers. I don't think anybody's been able to match that in The US. That said, I think a lot of people get consumer finance wrong in The US and say, just because nobody has built a Revolut sized business means that it's not going to happen. Actually, the last time I was on your show, I think I predicted a $100,000,000,000 neo bank coming out of somewhere, and I think we're a lot closer. I think Revolut's the closest we're gonna see to that. So **Harry Stebbings** [42:04]: I I I absolutely agree. I think Revolut is that, but I would actually place a lot bigger bet on Revolut taking The US than Chime. **Mark Goldberg** [42:11]: I would argue that there might be a company nobody's ever heard of yet that actually wins the mantle. **Harry Stebbings** [42:15]: You know, we have my moon on the show. He, you know, just lost tally. Brilliant founder Jason, but difficult business in the lending business. And he his last thing he told me was just that lending's really, really hard. Is lending just an uninvestable category? **Mark Goldberg** [42:28]: I think in lending businesses are very, very, very challenging. And if you look at the the the way that I've been comfortable investing in fintech, it's mostly been through the infrastructure that supports the growth of digital finance. **Harry Stebbings** [42:39]: What do you do when you meet an amazing founder in a shit market? Are you like, oh, I hate this. **Mark Goldberg** [42:45]: To me, it's a very obvious answer. I I would I would go all in on it. That would include lending as well. It gives me heartburn, but at the early stage, the stage I'm investing at, the stage that's core to chemistry, finding great people at this stage, they're going to iterate into something that's interesting. And again, take the other side of it. You know, even in my partnership, you would hear Ethan's much more markets focused than I am. But for me, great founders figure out a way to create market. I mean, if you look at, you know, I was very fortunate to see some amazing companies from Index from the early days, whether it was a Figma, whether it was a Wiz, whether it was a Datadog. Companies that you know, have been able to build TAM by just increasing the surface area of their products. That's the lesson I draw from some of those businesses that I've seen from the early days. **Harry Stebbings** [43:26]: My question to you is what other markets are you like? Like for me, recruitment software? Oh. Oh, no. I'm like, honestly, I'm really sorry. Education. Ad tech just sucks. Okay. **Mark Goldberg** [43:38]: So one of it's it's it's funny. We just looked at a recruiting software company, got me. So I'm just laughing about that. But what I would say is one of the dangers of experience and having done this for almost a decade now is shutting your brain off for a category that didn't work in the past. So I have a little bit of an allergic reaction when you say that, not because I disagree with you in any of those specifics, but in the sense of a trap that people fall into and this happened in fintech. You look at the evolution of fintech. So in fintech, the the most knowledgeable people were a bunch of the East Coast funds that knew that come had spent two decades inside of financial institutions and knew the market way better than the West Coast funds. And they outsmarted themselves from every money making deal in the category, the the really, really big ones. And the West Coast funds that have the naivety to lean in, I think, still did really, really well. **Harry Stebbings** [44:23]: I would say the smartest in fintech are Matt Harris and Mickey Malka. Listen. Though I mean And they've made a fuck ton of money. **Mark Goldberg** [44:30]: What what I would say is Matt Matt Harris is is probably the the smartest and best fintech investor out there. Mean, know, Ribbit's obviously incredible as well. But Matt Harris, think, you know, has kind of set the direction of fintech for a very long time. But what I would argue is like that knowledge can be counterproductive as well. If you know too much, because the the crazy ideas are crazy. Right? Like you can outthink yourself from any good series a by overthink. I've done it myself. I've seen other people do it. And I think knowing too much can actually be dangerous. So what industry are you like? Sales sales tools. The next AI for sales tools company. I have a very hard time, you know, keeping an open mind at this point. I **Harry Stebbings** [45:09]: did I did a Lavanaise. **Mark Goldberg** [45:10]: You mentioned at the beginning of listen, it's I know how well they're doing, but I I just have a hard time, you know, seeing I I've just heard the pitch so many times. There's a lot of, of activity that I don't think is gonna go anywhere there. **Harry Stebbings** [45:21]: How do you turn people down? Do you say the honest truth, or would you rather gloss it over because there's no point being that honest and blunt? **Mark Goldberg** [45:30]: My answer to that question has changed by fundraising myself. There were a lot of times where it was easier as a as a VC just to say something polite to to to not give people the real feedback. And having been on the other side of a fundraise and now felt the other direction, I think it's really helped me understand how useless that is and the importance of giving strong constructive feedback. **Harry Stebbings** [45:53]: The other big change though in you is you've moved from a multistage fund where you have to preserve optionality and you have to keep them on side. **Mark Goldberg** [46:00]: That is such a good point because you can be wrong and right at a multistage fund. When you're doing what we're doing at Chemistry, you get one bite at the apple. And that is that's actually for what it's worth, that's a new muscle for me, But it's also really empowering and it's it's one of the reasons I'm having so much fun right now because it focuses you in a way that I had not done before where the danger of the optionality of being able to do every stage at every time is you have to keep so many doors open. There is something that focuses the mind by saying, this is the stage we're doing and this is the stage we are not doing. And therefore, of giving yourself the kind of the test of conviction of where you are and then being able to kind of adapt and and change the operations around that. What will you break first **Harry Stebbings** [46:40]: or more **Mark Goldberg** [46:41]: willingly, check size or ownership? The check size. It kinda goes back to my sense of you have to be in the winners. And I think that when we feel like we are in a winner, I'm willing to to move up on check size to be a part of those companies. **Harry Stebbings** [46:55]: What's your capital concentration limit on a per company basis? **Mark Goldberg** [46:59]: I can't remember what legally we we have as the concentration limit, but certainly we don't want more than 10% of the fund in a single company. **Harry Stebbings** [47:05]: I I remember Brian Singerman said to me on the show that the enemy of great venture returns is capital concentration limits on a per company basis. And he mentioned that they have 30% in some funds just for one company. **Mark Goldberg** [47:17]: Listen. If it's the right company, that's incredible. That would I would have a hard time sleeping at night with that sort of concentration. But, you know, I think Airbnb, I'd probably Then you're sleeping just just great. But you're probably sleeping on a yacht in Saint Tropez. So it's it's different. But I I I think like having some sense of perspective. But listen, I think one of the advantages of being newfound is taking a lot of risk. I think we're gonna try a bunch of things that don't work and I'm totally comfortable. I'm excited for that. Like we should be doing all sorts of things and seeing how do we push the innovation in this industry. And I think that's gonna create a better founder experience even when we get it wrong. **Harry Stebbings** [47:50]: If I were to give you just one bit of advice, people and that no one everyone will tell you the opposite. Don't be afraid to do brand deals where you do get into brand names with tiny ownerships. The most important thing is that you align yourself with incredible founders and incredible companies in this new era, especially in this new era of AI. Just get into some great companies and be aligned with them. **Mark Goldberg** [48:11]: So funny enough, we had some LPs say exactly the same advice, which was one of my more surprising moments from our fundraise where some of the LPs said, it's that important that you're in some of these brand deals to be able to establish yourselves and don't be afraid to lean into that. We had other we we had LPs say exactly the opposite too, but it was interesting that even the LP community was there are positive externalities from being in these, you know, these winners and you should be willing to kind of compromise to do that. **Harry Stebbings** [48:35]: Listen, friend. Are you ready to do a quick fire? Yeah. Let's do it. So who outside of chemistry do you learn most from in the venture industry? **Mark Goldberg** [48:43]: The person I learned the most from has been Mike Volpe. Just a tremendous mentor to me at at Index Ventures and, somebody I continue to call regularly for advice as as I'm kind of navigating our our new fund in next chapter. What would you most like to change about the world of **Harry Stebbings** [48:56]: Venture? **Mark Goldberg** [48:57]: I would change the groupthink. I think it's bad for founders, and I saw a great meme go around yesterday of, you know, a cheetah, an airplane, a rocket ship, and then the speed at which venture gossip moves between associates, and that resonated with me. I wish there was a little bit more independent thinking in the industry. **Harry Stebbings** [49:13]: One thing I do say to founders is, like, you are either fundraising or you're not nowadays, sadly. What WhatsApp groups have changed is the ability for associates to communicate very, very fast with large groups that actually, oh, I met Marc. He wasn't great, and, actually, they're not even at 500,000 in ARR, so we turned it down. It can really damage a raise when you're not even raising. **Mark Goldberg** [49:35]: I agree. I think you're totally right. I I think companies need be very cognizant of those dynamics. **Harry Stebbings** [49:40]: What do you most need to change in yourself as an investor to be better? **Mark Goldberg** [49:45]: You know, really thinking about how I spend time and reorienting it a 100% towards playing offense is is a is a new skill for me right now, after having been in a large **Harry Stebbings** [49:54]: even possible, dude. I mean it nicely, but, like, you get board seats, portfolios accumulate. You can't. You have team members. They have culture, morale, promotions. **Mark Goldberg** [50:03]: So you can't forever. You can when you have a clean slate from day one. So you don't have it forever, but I have it now. I feel like I'm running with a jetpack on my back right now. It is a tremendous feeling and it's probably, you know, what you felt for your fun one before you made an investment. I mean, that's the the level of energy and and the kind of the juxtaposition from carrying a, you know, a very heavy board load and portfolio load and going to that. So you're right. It's not infinitely scalable, but it's very exciting right now. **Harry Stebbings** [50:29]: You can invest in a seed firm, a series a firm, and a growth firm. Can't be yours or mine. Which would you invest in? **Mark Goldberg** [50:36]: Pick the fund? Oh, this is a good one. So mine would be like **Harry Stebbings** [50:39]: cyber starts at seed. We'll need to go at adjacent. A, it would it would have to be benchmark. And then growth, I'd do thrive. **Mark Goldberg** [50:48]: So growth, I would do Meritech. I think they're doing extremely interesting work right now. Series A **Harry Stebbings** [50:53]: And they're constrained fund size for growth. **Mark Goldberg** [50:55]: And they're constrained fund size for growth. And they're they're just doing some really interesting work. So I'm a huge fan of of kind of the strategy and the people They **Harry Stebbings** [51:01]: nailed generational transition with Alex, Max, and Max. **Mark Goldberg** [51:05]: It's a team of hitters. It's independent thinkers. They're gonna have tremendous returns, and founders love working with them. So that's an obvious choice for me that there are some other great funds as well including IBP. At the Series A, I think Excel Ventures continues to just do really interesting innovative work. Very independent, very strong crew between Dan, Vas, Steve, a bunch of the other folks there, Amit. And at seed, there's so many good interesting seed funds right now. I I have a hard time giving you one off the cuff of my head. Come on. I'll tell you what though. We worked out the Uncork office to start the fund, and and they're a fantastic institution. **Harry Stebbings** [51:36]: What's the most challenging thing about starting a new firm? **Mark Goldberg** [51:39]: It's hard building something from scratch. Here we are before, this interview. I was trying to figure out how to get my microphone and lighting set up at a big fund. That would have been there would have been a whole team helping me do that. It's both the fun part. It's also hard, and that's, I think, what makes it fun. **Harry Stebbings** [51:53]: Mark, do you think richer investors make better investors? Because you're not afraid richer, like, personally. Yeah. Because you're not afraid of downside. You see upside **Mark Goldberg** [52:02]: Nobody has ever asked me that. That is such an interesting question. My gut reaction is to say the opposite, which is that the wealth level correlates with a lack of hustle and therefore but it's that's actually not in practice what I've seen. I think there is a correlation less about the money and more about the people who are so good at this job that it's not actually the money is the afterthought. They love the job and they love doing this. And I don't know if it's the I don't give a shit anymore because I have so much money that I I actually I'm not sure it's that. I think there is to get to that level, there's such a love of the craft and of of doing this job that they're probably pretty good at **Harry Stebbings** [52:39]: Dude, listen. I'm so thrilled for you. Honestly, I I'm so happy to see the news, and this is such an exciting time. So thank you for doing this with me, and it really means a lot to have the friendship. **Mark Goldberg** [52:49]: Harry, it's a total pleasure. Like I said from the beginning, congratulations again on your fun. Thank you for having me on the show, and, thank you again. **Harry Stebbings** [52:56]: I wanna say a huge thank you to Mark for joining us today. It was the only podcast episode that Chemistry have done as part of the release. Such a joy to make that happen, and you can watch the full episode on YouTube by searching for 20 VC. That's two zero VC. But before we leave you today, ## Sponsor read **Harry Stebbings** [53:10]: what do Henry Ford and AI have in common? Neither could change the world without automation. In the future, there will be two types of businesses, those that have automated and those that wish they had. UiPath, the undisputed leader in automation, is taking us into the era of agentic automation. UiPath's new AI agents don't just follow rules. They think, they make decisions, they work alongside the world's most powerful software robots already trusted by over 10,000 businesses. If Agenic Automation sounds new, just think of UiPath as more growth, not more overhead platform or happier customers, happier employees platform. Whatever you want AI to do for your business, Agenic Automation with UiPath will make it happen. Try UiPath's new AI agents for free at uipath.com. The future of automation is both agentic and robotic, so don't get left behind. And speaking of transforming your business with cutting edge technology, let's dive into another game changer, Atio. Atio is the next generation of CRM. Setting up Atio takes less than a minute, and in seconds of syncing your email and calendar, you'll see all of your relationships in one place, all enriched with very valuable data. Ateo also lets you build Zapier style automations, gives you powerful reports, and works perfectly for any go to market motion from PLG to sales led. And Ateo is designed for the next era of companies like yours, and companies like yours shouldn't have to deal with inflexible one size fits all CRMs. So join industry leaders like eleven Labs, Replicate, Modal, and more to scale your startup beyond the next level. Head over to ateo..com/20vc, and you'll get 15% off. That's 15% off your first year at ateo.com/20vc. And if ateo helps you stay ahead by streamlining your relationships and operations, now if you're looking to stay ahead on the investment side too, Fundrise's innovation fund is taking venture capital to a whole new level. It's a public venture fund anyone can invest in, not just institutions and accredited investors. The Fundrise Innovation Fund is democratizing venture capital, which could have big consequences for the industry. The fund is already off to a good start with a 100,000,000 into some of the largest, most in demand AI and data infrastructure companies. Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Databricks. Check out the innovation fund's impressive list of investments for yourself by visiting fundraise.com/20vc. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the innovation funds prospectus at fundrise.com/innovation. This is a paid partnership. As always, I so appreciate all your support, and stay tuned for an episode coming on Monday with a business that was valued at over $1,000,000,000 and overnight said no more SaaS company. We're going AI first and AI revenue only. An incredible turnaround story on Monday.