Building For Scale with Gokul Rajaram (DoorDash) and Jeff Richards (GGV Capital)

All right, everybody, here to close out our SMB Tech Summit. I'm Jeff Richards, one of the partners at GGV Capital. And with me, I have Gokul, longtime friend of our firm. Gokul, maybe it'd be helpful for you to just do a quick introduction and then I'll add in some color.

Thanks, Jeff. It's great to be here at the GGV SMB Tech Summit. With all of you. I work at DoorDash. I've been at DoorDash for the last 2 years, and prior to DoorDash, I worked at Square for the last 6 and a half years before that. And then before that, I worked at Facebook and Google. I've primarily been, been in product engineering and design roles, so leading teams of product managers, designers, and engineers. Started my career as an engineer and have built products mostly addressing SMBs At Google and Facebook, I worked on ads and advertising business at both those companies were primarily SMB-centric. Square, of course, is a company focused on serving SMBs, and DoorDash connects consumers and small businesses. So thinking about SMBs has been part of my life for the last 15 years. So I'm very, very excited to be part of this event today.

Amazing. I would actually argue—

Jeff, you're one of my favorite people in venture.

I would argue Square You know, Square, probably along with Shopify, did more to sort of glamorize technology and fintech for SMBs than almost any other company I can think of. Obviously Intuit is kind of the OG of the SMB tech universe, but really Square came along and just shined a light on this whole category, which has now created over a trillion dollars of public market value. One of the things you and I chatted about, uh, Gokul, recently was the idea that SMBs is, is a very broad term applied to small businesses. Can you talk a little bit about how you think about small businesses, and given all your experience at Ash and Square. For the entrepreneurs and CEOs and founders and executives who are tuning in today, what are some of the things that they should be thinking about when they're thinking about selling into that? I mean, it's a— 60% of the US workforce works for a small business. So this is a huge part of our economy. But as you and I talked about, SMBs are not all— they're not one little entity.

You're absolutely right, Jeff. And to be honest, I don't like the term SMB. If you ask any small business owner, they don't think of themselves as an SMB. The term SMB is invented by industry observers, analysts, and, you know, folks who follow the industry. But the customer themselves never thinks of themselves as an SMB. They think of themselves as a restaurateur, as a salon owner, as a hairstylist, as a piano teacher, etc., etc. And so it's very important when we as entrepreneurs, as companies, think of building products servicing small businesses, we think of segmenting them. And we really, like, like you said, all small businesses are not created equal. I think of segmentation of small business along two dimensions. The first is around size and type of small business. So you start with the freelancer, someone who's basically an individual person, and there are businesses that are just going after freelancers because they have unique needs, especially over the last 18 months with COVID how freelancers run their business has fundamentally changed. Then there are sole proprietors who maybe have a couple of contractors, etc., they employ, but they're basically sole proprietors. And these are in many cases sometimes running brick-and-mortar businesses, but in many cases service businesses. These are folks like your piano teacher, like I mentioned, your golf instructor, et cetera. Then there are proprietors with a small number of employees. So if you go to a small restaurant, there's probably a proprietor who's the owner but has, you know, a few hourly workers who essentially are the employees with one location. And so those are the— I would say all of these are micro small businesses. Typically the turnover or the revenue is somewhere in the, you know, less sub-$500,000 a year range. And then you start going into bigger businesses, multi-location, multi-geography, so multi-region, and then franchisees who can own either one franchise or multiple franchises of a broader location. So these are all different permutations of variations on size. But then you get into the other level of complexity, which is vertical, which is the type of business they are. Like I said, every business thinks of themselves not as a small business, but as the customer they serve. What do they do fundamentally? I own a restaurant, I own a flower shop, I have a beauty salon, I'm a hairstylist. And so fundamentally, I think there are 3 probably big buckets. There is restaurants, which is a 1 million— there are about a million restaurant locations in the US, and probably I would say 5 to 10 million worldwide. Uh, retail, which is people or businesses that sell finished product. Restaurants prepare fresh food or prepare food while retail is anything including grocers who sell products that are already made. Now, there's obviously an interesting blend between these two because at many grocers you can find, you can find fresh food, and at many restaurants they've started selling retail products. But restaurant and retail are two big buckets. And the third bucket is the longest tail bucket, and I think is the most interesting and ripe for building services. I call them service providers. These are primarily people who sell time in different ways. And, uh, it's a very, very long tail of business. Everyone from plumbers to, to salon owners to, uh, you know, essentially anyone.

Yeah, yeah, that's a huge part of the economy. What about— and as you think about, you know, when, when you were looking to segment those customers at Square, or even in what you're doing today at DoorDash, you know, when I think of like large enterprise software, they sell Fortune 1000, then they have what they call mid-market, but these are still huge companies they're selling to. Do you see the best SMB tech providers doing that as well? Or is it sort of a, hey, one size fits all? We've got an offering. If you're adopting it, it's probably a great fit. Or are you seeing them segment their go-to-market activities by, you know, you mentioned franchisees versus sole proprietor, that kind of stuff?

The more you can focus, the more differentiation you can create and the bigger the moat you can build around your business. I strongly believe that if you're trying to build for something that serves everyone, you end up serving no one. At both Facebook and at Square, we had these pivotal moments in the company where we realized, my goodness, we are building a broad horizontal product which tried to serve everyone, and it was really not serving anyone very well. So we had to really buckle down and define segments that we were serving, and to the exclusion of other segments. And maybe the broad horizontal product could serve everyone else, but we had to. And I think it's very, very important to define the segment. I think Toast is a great example. Toast is a company, point-of-sale company, that many of the viewers might know. They recently went public, $30 billion market cap, and they are not going after— despite what people think, they're not going after every restaurant. They're going after a very specific segment of restaurants, as Jeff, you know well. And so that segmentation— and they're going after restaurants, they're not going after grocers. So they've again made a very specific strategic choice around a vertical and the segment and the size segment they're going after. And I think every— in a company you and I both know and love, Slice is doing the same thing. Again, a very conscious choice around the vertical and even specific vertical within restaurants, pizzerias, and then the type of pizzerias they're going after. So I think you've got to make a strategic choice early on. And there are great companies, I think, that have been created by making the strategic choice. If you, if you avoid making those choices, you end up building a product a business that is too, too broad and not serving anyone well. That's not going to be for success.

And it's all tied together, right? When I think about Slice, one of the magical things about their business, because they are serving one-off pizzerias, they also have a very low cost to serve, right? They have an offshore team in Macedonia that provides customer service to those customers, many of whom are not, you know, not super tech savvy. This is some of the first technology they're using to operate their business, which sort of leads me into my next question, which is, When you look at, and I know you're a prolific angel investor as well, when you look at companies that are getting into the SMB tech space, what do you look for in terms of the characteristics of the business that where you say, ah, you and I were talking about one last week, where you say, ah, that has the makings of something that could scale and get big. What do you look for?

Yeah, it's a great question. And SMB, you know, again, first and foremost, as you know, You look for a founder who understands the specific, who's made the strategic choice. And so, I really like, there is a thesis I've had, and I think it's been, we're seeing that proven out with companies like Toast, which is if you, if you really understand a specific class of businesses where you understand and you've lived and breathed it and you understand the pain point, you can build a massive software and financial services solution serving that segment. So I look for two things. One, a deep, non-obvious understanding or non-obvious insight into a specific segment that is not obvious to just observers from the outside. And I think one of the interesting insights that I got is that by just living this over the last few years is that small businesses, smaller the businesses, the less likely they are to pay for things that are not— that they deem non-essential. And unfortunately, most software services, most SaaS products that are subscription-based, they think of as non-essential. There's only a few things that they care about, which is truly running their business, where they need, say, a point of sale or payment processing. But if you try to sell them marketing, for example, marketing services, there's half a dozen marketing companies that have faltered at the altar of trying to help SMBs, uh, of figure out how to do marketing. Because SMBs mostly get their customers by word of mouth, and unless you can truly show truly that you can drive growth, they will— and it's not a SaaS, you have to almost have accountability, you have to charge them on a per-customer basis— they will probably shut you off and you're going to churn massively. Because churn is one of the— it's almost equivalent to consumer companies at SMBs. You seek SMB churn in the, in the range of 3 to 4% a month. Think about that. 30 to 50% of your customers are churning every year, and that's impossible. So churn is something you look for. You look for services that are truly, that are ideally free software, but to sell a free or essential software in order to actually almost be a gateway to offering some other kind of transaction-based services, which is really where the bigger pie is. And then finally Sorry, go ahead. Then finally, you look for a compelling way of acquiring these businesses. And I think the smaller the business, the harder it is to acquire them due to the cost, the CAC being high. So you either look for— Toast is a good example. They could never— they have a very strong sales team, but they didn't— with that sales team, you cannot go after the long tail. You've got to go after businesses that have an annual revenue of at least a million, if not more. While Square was only able to go downmarket because they had a very strong organic channel. So, the acquisition channels have to be consistent with the businesses you're going after.

And you guys at Square, you really pioneered the idea of financial services for— not financial services, but fintech, if you will, services for SMBs. It feels to me like we're still in the first innings of that at a broad scale. And I look at all the businesses we're involved in, whether it's Brightwheel or Slice or Homebase, Everybody down the line has a fintech strategy they want to implement. Where do you think we are in that evolution? And where do you see the biggest opportunities, I guess, both around fintech as well as around the rest of the kind of the SMB universe?

I think you're right. On the Square front, it's so interesting. You know, there was— I remember about a year before I was going to join Square, or I even interviewed with Square, a very, very well-known investor who's kind of like a mentor. I met with them and they were like, well, you know, there's this company that you should be careful about called Square, that you should probably— really great vision. You know, we passed on their Series B, Series C, Series D, all the others. You know, it's like, right. They were like, well, you know, payments are a commodity and they're going to go to zero. We firmly believe. And, you know, Square has all these hand-wavy ideas of these other services, but we don't think any of them, you know, will come to fruition because you've never seen something like that. That doesn't really happen. And so I was like, you know what, this person is probably really smart and, you know, I respect them. I should probably stay away from Square. And turns out, once I met Jack and the team, I forgot all about that and ended up joining the company. And we actually ended up proving, you know, many of the doubters wrong. And of course, I mean, thank you to GGV for also believing in Square and investing. But I think the fundamental I think what you said is that we are still in the early innings. I think it's still the first inning just because most kinds of businesses are not digitized. A fundamental prerequisite to actually scaling financial services is digitization. So I think if you look at the 4 kinds of buckets, I think that exist, that opportunities that exist for entrepreneurs and investors, the first and foremost is digitization. I think there is still countless verticals, countless kinds of businesses countless industries that are still operated on pencil and paper, and we haven't figured out how to bring those workflows online. And I think the key part of the workflow is one side, transaction workflows. You have to bring them online because obviously in order to have financial services, the transaction needs to be digitized. And I think that's one of the most interesting things. The second one is transaction with your customer, but also transaction with your supplier, because those are the two most important things. And then if you can bring a full system of record, which takes all these transactions and pulls it all together. That's, that's really what you mean by digitization, where you're building a system of record for that business and digitizing transactions. So that's one big area. You start with that always, as much as possible. The second one, which is interesting, is the employee interaction. As we know, over the last 9-12 months, and probably over the next several years, hiring is one of the biggest challenges faced. It's faced by everyone, from companies, tech companies, to small businesses. Every single person— I mean, I now have gotten to know many restaurant owners over the last few years, and all of them, number one complaint is we can't hire people. And if you hire them right now, yeah, it's brutal. I mean, they don't stay. You literally— they give you— they don't give you notice. Suddenly you expect them to show up for the shift and they don't show up. And yeah, try to call them on their cell phone and they've already taken somewhere else, a role at Starbucks or somewhere else for $2 more an hour. And so tools that allow— one of the best wedges I've seen into financial services are tools that allow businesses to hire, to manage, and to build relationships with their employees. Because if you can, again, there's another interesting kind of transaction, which is the pay and the financial transaction between the employee and the employer. And that one, I think companies like Homebase and some of the others are doing. I think that's a very, very powerful thing because everyone gets a gets a paycheck. And so that paycheck is a wedge into broader consumer financial services, but through businesses. So hiring, I think solving hiring, digitization, hiring. The third one is the actual financial service. And I think it is hard, in my opinion, to start with a straight-up financial service for these businesses unless you're wrapping it around with some software, because the financial— the cost of acquisition of these— for these businesses is very high. And I think free software provides that wedge. But the number of financial services are almost countless. Payments is the first one. Payroll is another one. And payroll itself could be made, in theory, be free. And you could then monetize payroll through employee debit cards and so on that you could offer to employees or employee spending vehicles. Lending, infinite forms of lending. There's factoring, there's working capital, there's lending, straight-up loans, cash advances, et cetera. Is insurance, which is now starting to take up, you know, insure tech is a big enough space. There's lots of different banking. Ultimately, everyone wants to be the place where money is accumulated, because once money is accumulated and you become the primary repository of money for the business or the consumer, then you can build interesting financial services on top of it. But yeah, all of these interesting financial services. And finally, I think this is evergreen growth and marketing. I think if you can truly drive growth truly drive consumers new or get them to retain existing consumers, I think businesses are absolutely willing to pay. I think Google and Facebook, both Google in particular, I still remember many, we had so many different tries at figuring out how to get small business use AdWords, but just it's very hard because cost per click doesn't make sense.

No.

Cost per lead, it's also a hard one because it only works for some set of businesses where a phone call is the currency of business. So, I think you've got— people have to find other ways to drive measurable ROI to these businesses. But again, digitization, hiring, or the employee-employer relationship, the actual financial service, and growth/marketing are the 4 big buckets. I think still evergreen, still very early.

And all 4 of those are so early. I mean, I think about like across the, you know, the— our SMB tech portfolio represents a few hundred thousand merchants. All of those areas are almost untapped. I mean, you think about the hiring and workforce management, we spent billions of dollars enabling large corporations to do that well. Almost nobody has focused on that for SMBs, and it's a huge opportunity. We're obviously seeing a huge labor shortage in the country right now, so I have to believe that will draw, you know, maybe SMBs will be willing to spend more money in that area. That'll draw entrepreneurs towards that area. But then you talked about managing your supply side. I mean, there's, there's almost no supply chain management for SMBs. We actually funded a company, uh, called Adeko that is, that is playing in that space. Slice will eventually play in that space, but it's, it's day one. I mean, it is all of those tools and technologies. In fact, most of the technology adoption that's happened thus far has all been front-end e-commerce sites. You know, you mentioned sales and marketing software, things like that. The back of the house for these operations, whether it's payroll, communications, workforce management, whoo, I mean, the next 10 years, I have to believe we're going to see a huge wave of adoption. Plus you have all these new merchants that are setting up in the wave of post-COVID that I think will be more tech savvy than their prior counterparts in the SMB space were.

I think the back of the house is a massive opportunity and there have been old school companies that have tried to back up house 10, 20 years ago, but they've all used a very heavyweight approach. But I think there's a complete revolution in which how can you, you can build it in much lighter weight. Easier to use, mobile-friendly ways, and not monetized through SaaS primarily, but really as a funnel to monetizing through transaction-based or financial services or marketplaces.

Yeah, and I love the idea of growth. I think at some point we're gonna see vertical communities. You know, I think the technology and service providers will help foster vertical communities where people can learn how to grow their business more effectively. That just seems like another huge opportunity. Slice kind of does it today. They'll get pizzerias together to talk shop and share best practices, 'cause they're not really competing with each other in different zip codes. But man, that feels like another huge area of opportunity because every market—

all of these are intermingled, right, Jeff? You've probably seen companies that no one company stays in one bucket. Turns out that you naturally, your customers pull you into at least two of these buckets. I would testify that, I'll say that it's very hard to in fact build a company in just one bucket because these two, at least two buckets, I think together, like if you do growth, you also end up doing financial services, financial services, because financial services give you the data you need to drive growth. And so if you do employee-employee hiring, you end up into financial services. I think financial services is almost maybe a core thing, but you do one or two of the other things, maybe all of them together for a vertical really well. And the more of these things that Slice, for example, I think they'll probably end up doing all four. I think they're already doing elements of all four of them. And, uh, you know, you want to be that kind of company that owns the stack, complete stack for a, for a segment of businesses.

So you, you've, you've been at Google, Facebook, Square, DoorDash, four of the iconic tech brands of our generation. Uh, I would put Tony and DoorDash in that group. But what are some of the lessons that you learned along the way about scaling? So if you just think about, you know, we mentioned earlier churn and CAC, LTV. Um, you know, a decade ago, people, venture capitalists, wouldn't fund SMB tech businesses because they didn't think they would scale. Now obviously we have Square and Shopify and Wix and Squarespace and all these companies that have gone on to be very successful. From the inside, what were some of the things that you saw or you guys did as a team that helped you scale? And what are you doing today at DoorDash that's helping scale? Because DoorDash is an incredible story of scale.

Yeah, let me avoid the DoorDash question since it's a public company. I want to—

right, right.

DoorDash comments at a minimum, but let me talk about Square, Facebook, and Google. I think one of the most interesting characteristics I saw about all three companies is that there was a very clear fit between, I would say, founder-company fit. There was a very clear fit between the founder and the company they were building. For example, Larry Page and Sergey, both of them were extremely focused on building technology. They were deep into technology. They would hire the best technologists, and, and all of our goals and OKRs around building massively scalable technology, uh, Google was truly very technology-centric. Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, at Facebook was very growth-centric. I think Facebook is the best ever growth-centric company, maybe in history, because our goals and the kinds of people we hired were all around growth. Mark himself is a brilliant social thinker, and he was— it's brilliant to just see him come up with new ways of thinking about how consumer-to-consumer interactions have to take place to drive growth. And then Jack was the design thinker. He was truly, uh, and for him, design was around how to simplify things. It was not his own visual design, but around figuring out what is— how to minimize the number of steps that the user needs to take to achieve their goal. And Square therefore is a very, very design and product-centric company. So I think the founder-company fit, which then led down to the first 20 employees that they hired— if you look at the first 20 employees of Google, First 20 employees of Facebook and the first 20 of Square, they'll all be very different from each other, but they'll all be very similar to each other. And they were just— they set the foundation of the culture. And that— and even the values of the company and what they emphasized and stressed, who they promoted, etc., were all in sync. So I think in some ways, the companies, the founders, the values, the people, all were this unique mesh that was very hard to separate. And I was struck by how different each company was from the other, yet within that company, how congruous, how consistent everything was. And it just shows that there are many different paths to growth. But ultimately, as a founder, you've got to be true to yourself, and you can't create a company that is inconsistent with— ultimately, I think companies, even I think Salesforce, even though I've never met Mark Mark Benioff. I think Salesforce is a reflection of Mark Benioff. Great companies are a reflection of the, of the founders and the CEOs, and they have to create that. And the second interesting one, Jeff, is that most companies, I do think, need a second great product or business line.

I was just gonna ask you about this.

Yeah, yeah, it's very hard to create a massive company with just one product or business line. Now In case of Google and Facebook, they acquired companies. Instagram and YouTube were both acquisitions. You could argue that Gmail, etc., for a second, but I really think of YouTube as the true second product of Google, Instagram for Facebook. With Square, we got incredibly lucky that we, thanks to Jeff and Brian Castañeda, we started Cash App, which became a big second product. So I think without a second product that in some ways complements many of the things challenges or strengths of the first product, it's very hard to build a massive, massive, massive company. So, I think that second product is that second act, I almost think, which is very interesting. Many companies get complacent and they're like the first act, you know, this is it. But you need to constantly be thinking. I think once you have a second act, ideally that reinforces the first act and both of them are a flywheel that reinforce each other. I think AWS and Marketplace Amazon are exact great example, right? Even cash flow-wise, right? AWS, you know, is, is very high margin, but, but it takes a lot of cash. Well, Marketplace produces a lot of cash, is low, low, low EBITDA. Beautiful synergies between the two in terms of the businesses.

What advice do you give? Because one of the things that we see for growth stage companies is you have this relentless focus on the product that has been working and has gotten you to some scale and enables you to raise capital. But then in the back of your mind, you're constantly thinking, you know, for example, I'll give you a bunch of our SME tech businesses. They start with software, they then add in some fintech components, but then they're sort of constantly wrestling with how much do I double down on fintech? I want to launch a marketplace, I want to create community. And so there's this constant trade-off. I was just texting with a founder about it this morning who said, you know, I feel like I can't do that until I have additional capital. Um, I'd love to hear what your advice is to folks. And I know you're, you're someone who spends a lot of time thinking about product and product strategy. How do you coach folks to think about when to invest in those new products or those new lines of business versus doubling down on the, on the core, if you will?

It's a great, great question. First off, I think one should not even think about a second product or a second line of business until the first one is what I call bulletproof. In other words, the first one should be just unstoppable and should be going with— unless you feel that it's never going to be bulletproof, in which case you know, you should probably go to a second line of business. But if you believe in that business, you've got to make sure that line of business is bulletproof before you think of a second line. Once you feel that it's in a path to— it's like a few months away from being bulletproof or already bulletproof, then you start thinking. And I think the right resource allocation— I call them horizons. Horizon 1 is the core business. Horizon 2— and most companies only need 2 horizons, especially for the first 5, 6 years. Horizon 2 is businesses that can actually have impact or new product lines that can have impact on the business, on the company in the next 12 to 18 months. And then Horizon 3 is 18 months to 3-year time frame. Now, the 12 to 18-month things, I think about 10, 10, 10 to 15% of your company, maybe max 20%, should be working on that. So the best practices to launching a new product are: one, the new product should be extremely close to your first product, ideally one degree of separation. So The biggest mistake that entrepreneurs make is they're like, well, I have this, I have this customer segment, I have one product, I'm going to create a completely new product to target them. I think that's a very challenging thing because you're essentially upselling them on another product. What you should do is try to really figure out the way they're using your current product. What is it they can change slightly and leverage almost everything I'm doing to create a new product? For example, Square Capital was a great example of this. Where essentially everything that was happening, the payment processing, the repayment, everything was actually over the Square payment rails. They just did one thing, which is, hey, we have an offer for you. And as soon as they accepted the offer, everything else happened on the current product, which is Square payment rails. Instant Deposit, again, a great example. People were depositing money. We just said, well, you know, would you like your money deposited faster, instantly? Yep. There you go. I call them multiplicative product versus additive products. Yeah, you just— they're like a multiplication on the current product versus they have to do another one. So that's one. Second one is you've got to treat it like a startup. In other words, you have to constrain resources on this new line of business. You cannot overfund it. Constraints breed creativity. So you've got to say have maximum 6, 7 people on this thing and treat them— do not give them any resources unless they hit the next milestone. Just like you, Jeff, would not give a seed company more resources until they hit the milestone. And then finally, single-threading is very important. You need to have a single-threaded leader whom everyone, all of these people working on these new initiatives, report into. And that leader is such an important determinant. They have to be a person who's a 0 to 1 person and not a 1 to 10 or 10 to 100 person. We were very lucky at Square that we had this person, Brian Grassadonia, who is now the GM of Cash App. And he basically was an amazing 0 to 1 person. And basically Jack just plugged him and he was working on something on the point of sale and just made him the head of Cash App. And that was the single biggest thing we did, having someone with the drive to make something from zero and make it into a massive company.

And there were also products that you guys worked on at Square that didn't work, right? I mean, that's the other thing.

You have to be able to kill ideas.

Exactly. How do you think about that? Because that's the other thing that we hear from founders a lot is this fear of failing. Well, if we put a whole bunch of talented resources on this new idea and it doesn't work, and I actually use Square as my example all the time. There was Square Wallet, there was this Starbucks—

Square Other. Exactly. I was known as the killer at Square, product killer, because I've killed— I killed several products at Square because I think people got very enthused because the company felt that we were holding ourselves accountable in the right way. Because we said we're going to end this if in 18 months we don't see progress, success. So you need a certain period of time. 6 months is too little. 12 months also, you might see some glimmers. 18 months is good enough period of time. But if in 18 months you're unable to prove some hypotheses out, you should kill the product and you should be proud about it because you, you, you stuck to your principles and you killed it. And then those people go on to do something great at the company. And we saw this time and again. So I think you need to, and that's the trade-off you get when you go from the core business to join a new line of business. Yes, you get to do stuff, you know, which is cool, zero to one, et cetera, but you could be killed. You will be killed if you don't hit your milestones. Within the first 18 months that we've agreed upon.

Yeah. Lastly, we've only got a few minutes and we didn't— this wasn't in my prep, but what is your outlook for the next year or so in the SMB economy? I'm very bullish. I think that we're going to have a new wave of innovation. I think tech adoption is going to create better companies. I'd just be curious to get your thoughts. You've been in the middle of this space for a decade and love to hear your thoughts on what may be coming down the pipeline next year.

We are going to see a thousand flowers bloom, Jeff. I think just like you said, We're going to see massive— I mean, the new wave of entrepreneurs is really thinking not just in terms of SMBs, but in a very, very well-defined segment, both from a vertical perspective and from a size perspective, and going after that. And you and I both talked to entrepreneurs who live and have lived and breathed this and have seen how COVID has impacted these businesses and have really built targeted solutions. And they've seen the playbooks, the best-of-week playbooks of companies like Square and Slice and others, and have piggybacked and made them better. So, I think we are going to see dozens of great companies, if not hundreds of great companies emerge and globally too, right? That's the other interesting thing. We're seeing incredible, I mean, those same, you know, those same playbooks are being used in countries all across the world, India, Brazil, China, Europe, etc. So, we're going to see, I think, I think it's going to be a, you know, it's going to be an incredible next decade. I think 2030 for the next 10 years, I think it's one of the best.

It's pretty fun for us to see the explosion of ideas in Latin America and India and Africa and all these places around around the world that have literally never been touched by technology and, and are run, run on SMBs as well. And so all the ideas that pioneered by Square and Google and Facebook and others are being, are taking other markets, and it's going to be—

like you said, SMBs are a much bigger percentage of the economy than in the US.

Yeah, yeah, I'm bullish. I'm very bullish. So, well, thanks, Gokul. This has been fun. I appreciate it. Appreciate everything you do for, for folks in the, uh, in the tech ecosystem and our portfolio and the SMB economy. We really appreciate it.

Back at you. Thank you again. Thank you all. Okay, thanks, Rianne. Thank you. Bye.