20VC: The 3 Forms Of Edge A Founder Can Have, Lessons From Being on A Board With Bill Gates & Why There Are A Lot Of Tourist VCs Who Are Going To Lose A Lot Of Money, with Josh Wolfe, Co-Founder @ Lux Capital

You are listening to a very special episode of the 20 Minute VC with me, your host Harry Stebbings at hstebbings on Snapchat. It would be fantastic to connect there and all ads get a personal message from me however to the show today and why is it such a special show? Well, today's guest is slightly different from many of the traditional software investors we've had on the show. With that in mind, I'm thrilled to welcome to the hot seat today Josh Wolff. Now, Josh is the co founder and Managing partner at Lux Capital, the fund that supports scientists and entrepreneurs who pursue counter conventional solutions to the most vexing puzzles of our time. The more ambitious better don't believe me? Well, Josh is a founding investor and board member with Bill Gates and Kimeter making cutting edge antennas for high speed global satellite and space communications. And in 2008 Josh Co founded and funded Quion. The company was among the first responders to the Fukushima disaster. In February 2016, Veolia acquired Curion for nearly 400 million, more than 40 times Lux's total investment. I do also have to say a big thank you to Josh's partner Renata Quintini, who will be on the show very shortly. I'm delighted to say for the intro to Josh today, without which this episode would have been possible. But before we dive into the show today, I really want to talk to you about a company that's really changed the way I sleep and operate. Eight is a sleep innovation company with their latest product the eight Smart mattress being a bed that literally tells you how well you slept last night, paired with an intelligent sensor cover that measures the quality of your sleep and delivers a daily sleep report in order to bring you the best product. 8 used anonymized sleep data and feedback from over 10,000 people to understand which materials and types of mattresses give customers the best sleep, resulting in their unique BL responsive and high density foam layers plus one layer of proprietary technology that helps people track and improve their sleep. This is perfect for people like me, people who want to be more productive during the day, who use or have used a fitness tracker and want to take care of their health and fitness and sleep. And if that is you honestly you have to check it out on 8sleep.com and if you use the promo code 20VC, that's 20VC you'll get a whopping 20% discount. And with 8 keeping me productive with a home product, full contact is keeping 20VC team on top form. With full contact they provide the ability to organize your Contacts gain rich insights into them and therefore build deep relationships with features like automatically identifying and merging duplicate contacts to the ability to snap a photo of a business card and full contact will transcribe them for you. So no more lost and loose business cards at events like I always suffer from. It's with these features just being the tip of the iceberg that full contact really is the best all in one solution for contact management. And it truly has changed the way I not only manage my contacts, but engage with my contacts. And you can check them out on fullcontact.com but enough from me. So without further ado, I'm delighted to hand over to Josh Wolf, co founder and managing partner at Lux Capital.

3, 2, 1, 0.

You have now arrived at your destination. Josh, it's such a pleasure to have you on the 20 minute VC today. A huge thanks to Renata for the intro, but thank you so much for joining me today.

Really, my pleasure. I'm a fanatic listener and so happy to be on.

Well, you are too kind. What a great start. But let's start today with a little on you and how you made your way into what I most definitely call the most wonderful world of venture capital.

Well, I agree, my personal life is a mix of science and finance. Now, you gotta understand, I grew up in Coney Island, Brooklyn, and I don't know if you've ever been, but it's a special place. And it's actually got the scariest roller coaster in the world, not by virtue of descent or speed, but because it is so old, the Cyclone, that your ride may be the last. And I think that's almost a great analogy for venture capital itself. The ride is just insane at times. Growing up in Brooklyn made me a skeptic. You know, you sort of have this hardened mindset about human nature, but at the same time, I think I was also ambitious and pretty optimistic that I'd have a better station in life. I grew up with a single mom who was a schoolteacher. I loved hip hop, I loved basketball. But my mom pushed me to be a nerd. So science was my path and I competed, became a Westinghouse semifinalist, was on a path to an MD, PhD to go be a good doctor or a research scientist. And then a funny thing happened along the way. My scientific mentor, who I had done my research under, he was running an immunopathology lab. And so we would be in his lab spinning down centrifuges of HIV AIDS blood to investigate. And while we're doing that, he would be trading futures and options. So I got way more enamored with capital markets. And I think literally he handed me a book that was like the thing you get when you get your Wall Street Journal. It was like the guide to money and investing. I knew nothing about what a stock or bond was at even 15 years old. And then when I learned what venture capital was, this was the perfect hybridization of science and finance, and I was just hooked. And like science itself, it's the endless frontier, all these combinatorial possibilities. You thrive and live in risk and uncertainty and these amazing personalities and ambitious charact. So I got really lucky to sort of walk into this, because I'll do this till the day I die.

I do have to ask you that. You said about frontiers there, and I haven't seen multiple cycles. So this really is me asking you. With the hindsight you said about kind of working with Aminos there many years ago, I'm intrigued. Do you agree with the thesis that we're now kind of at the very frontiers of a whole range of new breakthrough technologies, be it VR, AR, Bitcoin, drones, or do you think we've kind of continuously seen these cycles throughout?

You know, I think it's sort of the same way that people pine for nostalg of the yesteryear. You know, if you went back 10 or 15 years ago, one could probably argue, or let's say even 20 years ago, that the rise of the Internet and mobile communication and websites and portals, you know, people would have said, oh my God, I've never seen anything like this. And so I feel like the next great thing, we'll look back and say, oh my God. We feel like we're at the cutting edge and this precipice of uncertainty and all these combinatorial possibilities. So in one hand, saying this time is different is sort of dangerous. But on the other, you are correct in that the combinatorial possibilities, the more technologies that we create, the more things can be put together and remix mixed in different ways. And so you definitely do feel, even looking at the scientific frontier, that the incremental discovery gets more and more specialized. It used to be that single person like Ben Franklin could do geometry and he could do arithmetic, and he could do cosmology and look out into the stars. And today, if you're going to make an incremental discovery in a field, you have to be so specialized in that field. And so I think the same thing is sort of happening in the entrepreneurial community on the one hand, where to make that incremental advance. You have to be really specialized. But because people are so specialized in all these different fields, the people that are able to come in almost in a renaissance style and pick from this guy's discipline and that woman's discipline and put them together are the ones that make these big breakthroughs.

I'm clearly sticking to the schedule here, obviously, but I'm just too intrigued. Saying of specialization there in particular with regards to science, what do you make of the specialization within vc? Potentially kind of the vertical specialization that we're seeing most commonly today. What do you make of that?

Well, it has its pros and its cons, right? So obviously people, you know, generals fight the last war. So if you are successful in a particular field, let's say you were an enterprise software investor and you had a big, well, now you've got this halo and the best entrepreneurs are going to come to you and equate your prior success with the increased probability that they're going to have success. And so very easily you can get locked into being a vertical specialist. And then if something changes in the capital markets where the thing that you were invested in suddenly becomes passe or out of favor, then you start to reinvent yourself and you're on to the next thing. And so I think that's a natural cycle of people reinventing themselves. But generally, I think on the one hand you're right to be concerned because you see people sort of pushing off into these frontier areas. And I think that there are a lot of tourist VCs who in these domains that are going to lose a lot of money. But I think that's always been the case. There's always somebody that's going off in some speculative future, whether it was clean tech or green tech 10 years ago, or people doing more hardcore tech and frontier investing today. On the other hand, there are people that are just absolutely passionately obsessed and dedicated to this. And whether it's inside our firm at Lux, at the partner level, or the entrepreneurs that we're investing in, I have a colloquialism that passion is the best predictor of success. And so at Lux, this is all we do. The idea of these counter conventional, futuristic science, technology ventures, this is what VC was meant for. It's high risk, it's cutting edge science. The idea that the next generation of industrial titans are going to be scientists, technologists, inventors, the people who are doing in many cases, far more than challenging the status quo, in some cases they're literally challenging the laws of physics. So we've been doing this for 10 years. It's 100% of our focus. And I think where you see other venture firms in their other bucket dipping a toe into some of these more proven or now heated areas, I think the idea of investing in the future is pretty much all that we do. And so that means that not only have we learned a lot about what risks are worth taking, but from our ecosystem and networks, which are a lot richer and deeper than I think other people's, it can also tell us what not to do. And so, on the one hand, we will commit early. We're willing to put down a term sheet and follow through on it when others are still wondering if they should even take the call, because it might seem a little bit weird and out there, but on the other hand, we've got a body of evidence that says certain things are just not worth doing.

Again, I'm so not on the schedule, but when you say weird and out there, often that would relate to a market that's not in existence at the moment. How do you view market creation then? When it comes to truly weird and wacky inventions that I'm sure you've seen.

It'S interesting because you have some firms that will say, we don't take market risk, and you have other firms that say we don't take technology risk and we'll actually take both. There is no comp that you can find for some markets where technology just didn't exist before. Right now, again, new things come from combinations of old. So you can take one technology and mix it with this other technology and create something, but sometimes it creates a demand or a market niche that you just never saw before. And I think some of the greatest inventions, some of the greatest technology, some of the greatest companies, and some of the greatest venture investments came when you had that combination of a novel technology into a new market. So oftentimes we'll say, well, what's the comp for this? And once we start asking that question, we actually know that we're onto something. Because some of the best examples in history, there were no comps. What was the comp for Microsoft before it existed? What was the comp for Facebook? I mean, maybe you could argue Friendster. What was the comp for some of the optical networking companies? So I think this is a pattern in vc, that itself, you know, just when you're confident and think you've got it figured out, you say, well, wait a second, we haven't seen anything like this. And that's a clue. And we pay attention to that saying.

We haven't seen anything like this often requires quite a, quite a significant amount of learning then to get up that knowledge curve. I'd be really intrigued with your kind of heavy focus on hard sciences and investing in hard science. I'm intrigued. How do you look to scale the learning process then and become familiar with relatively unfamiliar industries? What is the methodology? Teach me here, Josh.

So there's actually a rule here. I call it the 100%, 0%, 100% rule. And it's a mix of ambition and humility. And you might mistake the ambition for arrogance at points. The 100% part is basically saying, I have a hundred percent certainty that Lux will be investing in the most cutting edge areas that you can imagine over the next one or two years. The zero percent is that I have close to no idea what those things will be. And then you say, okay, well what's the last hundred percent? It's the certainty that I have about where they will come from. And so where they will come from is the cutting edge of our already cutting edge companies. And I can give you a few examples here. It was an interest in a cutting edge area in physics that we studied for many years, reading things like science and Nature and proceeding at the National Academy of Sciences and Chemical and Engineering News, things that are not your traditional daily publications. And we learned about a phenomenon called metamaterials. And metamaterials. Actually the British media got really excited about the possibility of creating these invisibility cloaks, sort of Harry Potter style. Now it turned out that wasn't actually practical or really accessible in the near term, but there were implications for being able to take materials which in technical terms have a negative index of refraction, which basically in layman's terms meant that you can take an electronic signal or electromagnetic wave and steer it like a beam without any moving parts. And the implication was that you could communicate with satellites up in space without needing to turn dishes mechanically. So we said, okay, that's pretty cool. So we look for all the scientists and we get excited about this area. And lo and behold, it leads us to start a company with Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold. And in a surreal stroke, the board of that company called Chimeta became Bill Gates, myself, Nathan and the CEO, founder and from that company. And this is a really special experience just because it's the only company that Bill was on the board of besides Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft. We're in a boardroom in Bill's office and we learn that these young guys in San Francisco want to take these antennas made by Kymeta out of this crazy material that's cutting edge breakthrough. And they want to put them on their satellites, really small satellites, the size of a loaf of bread. So from that nugget of information we go and visit these guys and it was at the time called Planet Labs. We became an early investor, goes on to change their name to Planet. They would end up buying Google satellite imagery, which was something Google acquired called Skybox. And they now have the largest constellation of earth imaging satellites in. Now from that company we got the idea that all that imagery that's coming off over time it might get commoditized. And the real value is going to be in applying artificial intelligence or machine learning the algorithms to be able to find patterns in the data, to look at the fields at farms, or to look at the cars and parking lots, all kinds of things from the sky that you could see as proxy for economic activity. So when you look at this chain from post facto, none of it was linear or obvious. But a priori beforehand, the idea that we went from metamaterials to starting a company with Bill Gates, Gates Kymeta, to leading to Planet, to leading to Orbital Insight, which is the company that we did, and Sequoia and Bloomberg and Google have all become investors, none of that was obvious beforehand. And that's one of these amazing phenomenons in sort of the edge of hard sciences. Relatedly, we funded a secretive company up in the valley called Zoox, which is reimagining autonomous vehicles and transportation.

I had a chat with the Blackbird team about it in Australia.

Amazing. They were also early investors and knew some of the founders. So what's really special about this company is I'm in a room and the room is a few thousand square feet and all these people look like they're playing video games. And I say, well, what are these guys and girls doing? And they said, you don't understand. Outside, all the vehicles that are running secretively are trained on lidar and optics and thermal and vibrational sensors and all these kinds of things. And they're ingesting all that information at the rate of 1 second per second, what you and I call reality. But inside, in silico, in the computer, you could do thousands of simulations a second. And they were running these on cutting edge Physics Engine. They were running them them on GPUs, graphic processing units. And it used to be that intel, the cpu, the computer chip, was the center of the machine. Now the GPUs are becoming the soul of the new machine. And those are made by people like Nvidia and others. So because of that clue, we say, wait a second, the future of AI and machine learning is going to be in GPUs. What's the next edge of GPUs? And it leads us to a company called Nirvana Systems. And we fund those guys and within a year they're bought by intel for $400 million. So part of doing this hard tech, investing in this long winded examples is the idea that once you're on the edge and you're reading the SC scientific literature and you're close to the credible founders and entrepreneurs, as long as you're ambitious and humble and a little bit paranoid, they lead you to the next thing. It's a pretty amazing phenomenon.

I love that chain reaction.

So on one hand, we're investing at the outermost edges of all this emerging science and tech and there happen to be very few players and few players in startups and few players in investors, just because it's hard. This isn't a dot com company, it's not a Groupon marketing thing where you have 5,000 global competitors. Our companies tend to have maybe four or five competitors. So from a market standpoint, your security selection is a little bit easier, as well as your identification of amazing founders. Then you've got big complex technical barriers. Oftentimes you have a lot of intellectual property. So the patents are a negative, right, that you can impose on people saying, hey, you guys can't do what these guys are doing. And then you've got teams that are building these companies who are often the only ones that technologically know how to do what they're doing because maybe they came out of a university or government lab. So among those areas, I think, you know, it's a common phenomenon. Now the other thing is within law, you've got a diverse team of interdisciplinary thinkers. So this isn't at all, in a politically correct sense about gender or the color of people's skin. This is about coming from different places, about having different scientific or legal or philosophical or cultural perspectives. My whole view is that the diversity that matters most is cognitive diversity. So companies now, you know, they're not just one thing, they're not just software or biology. We've got founding teams where you often have three different major disciplines. Your driverless cars, autonomous vehicles, you require computer imaging, mechanical engineering, machine learning, GPUs, among other things. So you get this really complex technical subset. Then you have things like ethical considerations. And so our team itself is this reflection of the fact that you have this sort of renaissance of technology and all these multidisciplinary personalities.

I have to say I did view hard science as a difficult investment criteria in terms of the longevity that it takes to achieve kind of realized returns. But when thinking about it and talking to you now, I get potentially concerned in the paradoxical view in terms of acqui hires and the consolidatory nature of it being so IP heavy and so technically advanced that it's a natural acquisition target and aqua hire target for the big incumbents today. To what extent does this kind of aqua hire IP heavy nature concern you with the industry? As you said, there was an exit there after 12 months.

In some case it's a protection on the downside, in some cases it's a cap on your upside. So it really depends. And that case I think we would have loved collectively amongst the other syndicate investors as well that maybe we waited a year or two because we probably instead of selling for 400 million to intel, could have sold for 4 billion. The difference, obviously this is life changing money for founders and you got to take that into consideration. I think if we can have a lot of those, everybody will be really happy. And I think it speaks to the fact that you've got large corporations, despite having huge amounts of cash, both domestic and overseas, are not heavily investing in R and D. So they are looking to acquire it. And so if you can do the kinds of things that you used to see in the Bell Labs and the intels and the IBMs and even Microsoft research being done in startup land, I think that's a net positive. Now the other thing on the time aspect, which I think is pretty interesting, is thinking about how GPs are focused or LPs are focused. And this is an interesting phenomenon because I think the shorter your time cycle, the more competition there is. If everybody's looking for the thing that's going to show big user growth in the next year, it's just easy for hundreds of investors to be able to evaluate it. It's harder for somebody to see if a biotech drug is going to work in five or six or seven years and to have that patience. And I've got a rule of thumb that there's basically three sources of edge. You've got informational edge, analytical edge and a behavior. So informational, you and I compete for information, right? We're two investors. In this day and age, it's really hard to have information that you don't have. Then you have an analytical edge which is maybe okay, you and I both get the same pieces of information, but we weight elements of it differently. Maybe you think it's more probable or less probable or more important or less important, but there's so many smart people out there that's also really hard. And so that leaves you with the last one, which is a behavioral edge. And the one source of behavioral edge that I think is timeless and no pun intended here is time arbitration. Arbitrage is having a differing view. If the public markets are thinking one or two years out and discounting back and VCs are thinking one or two years out, then if you are thinking three, four, five or let alone 10 years out, then you've got a time arbitrage advantage. So that's part of the reason that I think we like to focus on harder and longer things because it's just.

Less crowded mentioning harder and longer things there. Despite that kind of longevity of sometimes hard science outcomes. I'm intrigued then. Do you think that potentially we need longer fun science?

I think as long as you can make money for your investors, then investors are going to be okay. With a traditional 10 year fund. The idea that you might be doing something longer than that says one of two things. You were betting on exogenous outside market events. You were hoping that the public markets would be there. You were hoping that balance sheets or large companies would be there to acquire you. We're not funding true science risk, right? Those are things that are coming maybe 5, 10, 15 years incubated, often publicly funded government science out of universities. But there reaches a point where you can see that they're starting to do something in a small scale. And that's the time when you can scale something up for venture. And I think that hedges against the idea that you're going to be doing five years of science and then trying to do five years of commercialization if you can get it at the point, and that's a big part of our assessment. What amount of money is going to accomplish what in what period of time and who will care? So when we're making a decision to write a check and size that check, that's really the most important question or series of questions that we're asking.

What is the inflection point that you like to go on in the kind of R and D process of the company? Because obviously, obviously very early on there can be a lot of processes and testing to continue. Is there an inflection point where there's a kind of consumer fide ready to go go to market for the product or do you know What I mean, what is that inflection point for you where it's ready?

It depends on the industry. It's a really good question. So obviously in biotech you've got different clinical milestones, right? Phase one, phase two, two A, two B and so on. In hardware, some of it really depends on a simple thing. And it's amazing because I think a lot of people have done hard tech and lost a lot of money because they fail to ask. Ask the first and most important question with the ante that you're putting in in the proverbial poker table to turn over the card and that's does it work? Okay, so some of the big blow ups and flame outs you saw was just the technology didn't work. So we're willing to take technical risk and we're willing to take market risk on the technology risk we're going to fund up to the point does it work? Now I think where investors make mistakes is they keep funding it, but it hasn't worked. Maybe they want to believe, maybe they're being lied to, but I think that's the most important thing. Then the second thing after does it work? Is can we make this at scale? So you take that company, it started off not with science risk, but with technology risk. Would it work? Could we make 20 to 30 gigahertz spectrum that could get 1 to 2 gigabits a second on an antenna about as thick as an iPad. Okay, now you can do that in the lab. Great. Now can we manufacture it? And now they're manufacturing at scale and they happen to be leveraging in their case, supply chain coming from the flat panel display. And instead of making flat panels, we're now using that equipment to make antennas that can communicate with space, which itself is pretty amazing. But I think that's the two most important questions on that time frame. Does it work? How much money and how long to figure that out? And then when the answer is yes, can you make it? And then the third question is, will people buy it? And that's the market risk. And so each one of those things I think are a fundable, worthy series.

I absolutely agree. Before we move into the quick fight, I have one more though on that. And it's kind of the does it work? And when it doesn't work, what is that balance between the inflection point of it working and not working? And what determines whether you fund the next phase with it being still potentially unproven?

You know, in that case, oftentimes it's about an incremental capital. So we tend to be very disciplined. And I always say, I'd rather lose half my investors than half my investors money. So we're very disciplined about setting milestones and sticking to them. And we'll give here incrementally 10%, 30%, 50%. But the idea that somebody's going to say, oh, we've missed by a year, it just means that, look, the risk is not going to be for us. It means that fundamentally, the technologists misassessed how long and how much money it would take. And if they're doing that at the early stage, it's only going to get worse at the later stage.

No, I completely understand. I'd love to dive into a quick fire round with you though. So I say a short statement and then you give me your immediate thoughts in about 60 seconds. How does that sound?

Sounds fun.

So let's do your favorite book and why.

Favorite book is Sapiens Fundamental Conceit. As you may know if you've read this, what made us great was not our speed or our power or our agility or our knowledge, but the unique ability to conjure and share fictions. And that, I think, is such a provocative thought because it also, in my view, happens to be true. But it gets you thinking about money and gods and religions and nationalities and laws and human rights and things that do not objectively assume exist, in some cases don't subjectively exist. They only, as Yuval Harari talks about intersubjectively, the idea that I believe in it because I know that you believe because you know that other people believe, and so on and so on. And when you look around the constructs of most of society, you see this and it's a really powerful concept which also lets you shake some of the shibboleths and say, wait a second, that over there is pretty much bullshit and why don't we go and disrupt that?

What would you most like to change or alter in VC and startups?

I think that they. There is a culture that talks about praising and prizing failure, but I think it's disingenuous. I think people pretend to wear failure as this badge. And every time you ever see an entrepreneur and you ask, oh, how are things going? They're like, it's amazing, everything's amazing. And they feel like they have to keep this false front up. And then two weeks later you hear that their company just went completely under. And so I think that there's this fronting that goes on, which is unnecessary. And I think that there could be much More honesty and. And the culture could change to be more open. You don't have to fake it so much. And I feel like so many people are out there just faking it. And you'd have more authentic relationships, you'd have more honest dialogues. Investors would be spun less. Of course, when you are starting out, you've got to pitch something that doesn't yet exist, but there's a thin line between that and a con game. And I think that there's a lot of people out there that are just totally faking it.

What was the big takeaways from being and working alongside Bill Gates with the.

Experience, he would listen and sit and think, and then it would be the 9010 of it, meaning he would get to the 10% of the subject matter that had 90% of the value. He was exceptionally tuned in to supporting founder, CEO, very astute on the economics of product of technological development and what the big picture was. Also, I've got to tell you a quick story. Maybe two years ago, we're in his board meeting and the Forbes list had just come out. And I think it was for the 22nd or 23rd year in a row, Bill was the richest man in the world. And I'm sitting there and my wife makes fun because I have a very pedestrian palate. Grow up in Brooklyn. You like pizza, you like Coney Island, Ethan hot dogs. And I'm sitting there and I say, you know, you just made my day. And he says, why? And I said, you know, the rich list just came out. There you are again, you know, second decade plus. And we're sitting here eating this and what was it? California Pizza Kitchen. So I manage money for a lot of very wealthy people, and I've met a lot of very successful wealthy people. Everybody's got the same issues. You know, it's. Bill is not buying 1 billion pairs of pants. He's got means to do great things in the world, but most people are fundamentally similar.

Absolutely. No. That's incredible to hear, but I'd love to hear your favorite blog or newsletter. What are the must reads for you when they come in?

I used to love Sam Arbusman, but we loved him so much we hired him. So he became our scientist in residence. He's just. He's wonderful. He's a polymath. I'm a trustee at the Santa Fe Institute, which is this birthplace of complexity theory. And. And Sam has been a fellow there and involved, and it's an amazing group. And he likes to think very diversely, as we do another one I love Jason Hirshorn. So all his redefs media, sports, technology. I think he does a great aggregation with a little bit of commentary and snark. And I find he's got a great net to capture and filter a lot of stuff.

And then final question, and it's the most recent public investment for you and why you said yes.

I think it was a company Recursion that and it's interesting because our internal partnership debates are usually the fiercest over the smallest dollars or what we have low conviction. When we have high conviction, our dollar checks are the highest and everybody is near consensus. And Recursion is a company based out of Utah in Salt Lake City. It's a special team. They're in a unique place both in technology and geographically. And this was led by one of our colleagues, Zavindar. It mixes artificial intelligence and pattern recognition with phenotypic discovery. So it's looking at the structural nature of biology and cells and trying to use that to discover disease and then drug targets. And that's sort of turning things upside down because most people are trying to use genetics and the information and informatics behind that to look at individual personal genomes and drug interactions. And this is doing almost 180. So we thought that was pretty clever approach and they're meeting with great traction. But that was one of the most recent.

I have to say it's been beyond a pleasure to have you on the show. Seriously, it's been absolutely a fantastic learning curve for me in terms of kind of onboarding intervention. I've learned so much from you in. I also want to say a huge congrats on the fundraise. Such exciting times ahead for you and luck. So thank you so much for joining me today.

Such a pleasure. Thanks for having me, Harry.

I have to really say how much I truly enjoyed that. So fascinating to hear such a different perspective. And I'd like to give a huge hand to Josh for giving up the time today to appear on the show. And again, a big thank you to Renato Quintini for making the introduction. And if you'd like to see more from us and behind the scenes at the 20 minute VC, then you can follow me on Twitter HSTebBings with two Bs. It would be fantastic to see you there. But before we leave you today, I want to talk to you about a company that's really changed the way I sleep and operate. Eight is a sleep innovation company with their latest product, the eight Smart Mattress. Being a bed that literally tells you how well you slept last night paired with an intelligent sensor cover that measures the quality of your sleep and delivers a daily sleep report in order to bring you the best product. 8 used anonymized sleep data and feedback from over 10,000 people to understand which materials and types of mattresses give customers the best sleep, resulting in their unique blend of four responsive and high density foam layers plus one layer of proprietary technology that helps people track and improve their sleep. This is perfect for people like me, people who want to be more productive during the day, who use or have used a fitness tracker and want to take care of their health and fitness and sleep. And if that is you, honestly you have to check it out on 8sleep.com and if you use the promo code 20VC, that's 20VC, you'll get a whopping 20% disc discount. And with 8 keeping me productive with a home product, Full contact is keeping 20 VC team on top form. With Full Contact they provide the ability to organize your contacts, gain rich insights into them and therefore build deep relationships with features like automatically identifying and merging duplicate contacts to the ability to snap a photo of a business card and Full Contact will transcribe them for you. So no more lost and loose business cards at events like I always suffer from. It's with these features just being the tip of the iceberg that Full Contact really is the best all in one solution for contact management and it truly has changed the way I not only manage my contacts, but engage with my contacts and you can check them out on full contact.com as always, I so appreciate all your support and I cannot wait to bring you Friday's episode with Shopify CEO Harley Finkelstein.