Special Season: Inside Summit 2024 Fireside Chat with KJ Sidberry of Google Ventures

Hi everyone. So excited to sit down today to get started on our INSIDE Summit miniseries.

We're so excited to have had our first ever all-day conference event just last week in New York City with over 120 innovators and founders in In the room where it happens. If you want to hear more about our vision behind Inside Summit and some of our learnings of hosting our largest scaled event yet, listen to our opening episode of this miniseries. But what you can expect next is a recap of the conversations that we had in the room from the actual guests themselves. You can expect our opening fireside with KJ Sidbury, the partner over consumer investments at GV, our next-gen GenAI panel, which was curated by the GenAI Collective, our Future of Platforms panel, which was moderated by the associate editor at Forbes, and two more. Claudia, you want to fill our listeners in?

Yeah, absolutely. The future of direct-to-consumer with some incredible brand founders, operators, and agency partners. And then we ended the day with a recap episode, um, our fireside chat with Kashish Gupta, co-CEO of Hightouch, a previous podcast guest. So without further ado, Let's open the door.

So many of you might know KJ both for his incredible personality and vibes, but also for his status as a partner at Google Ventures. Um, this is a firm that focuses on early stage investing with offices across SF, New York, and London. Um, you yourself grew up in two separate households, uh, between your dad and his background with an entrepreneurship focus. And your mother's in education. Uh, after academically pursuing things I can barely say— neurobiology and then, um, also computer science— can't really do that myself. Um, and then you've been known to combine these studies, um, with your upbringing to connect more deeply with the entrepreneurs we have here in the room. Um, before joining GV, he was at Forerunner for a number of years where you were investing across consumer companies like A-Frame, Alchemy, Aura, Loop and others. We've had the Alchemy founder on the pod, so that's a fun one. Um, and then, yeah, we, we, uh, I think you stinted as a consultant, we were talking about for a second there. Um, but we couldn't be more excited to have him joining us today to talk about his career journey, his conversations with founders, and what we think about the future of consumer. So thanks for joining us.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Um, okay, so I gave a little bit about your background, but we would like to start more at the beginning. Where did you grow up and how has that shaped your view of the world?

Yeah, so I guess as my bio kind of included, I grew up in two households. And so I actually splintered my time here in New York, specifically Harlem where my dad lived, and Stamford, Connecticut where my mom lived. And so I was kind of oscillating between this like suburban hellscape in Stamford, Connecticut. I don't recommend it to anyone. And Harlem where, was radically different for a number of reasons. And so, yeah, I mean, having that type of opportunity from a very early age kind of sponsored and catalyzed like an approach to a life, I think that felt a little bit different because I was exposed to radically different worlds on two ends of two different spectrums. And I think that kind of like created a ton of weird opportunities for me, but also just a level of exposure that I came to really appreciate.

Yeah, no, I think just having those different contrasting experiences like definitely has helped you become so relatable to everyone. Because when a founder walks into your room, you know, you just don't know where they're coming from. And so I feel like just having that energy of, okay, I'm going to try to understand who you are and how that's shaped like the person you are, the founder you are. I guess for you, kind of in that early identity, did you think you were always going to become a venture capitalist?

Absolutely not. Partially because I had no idea what a venture capitalist was until 6 months or 8 months-ish. Before I was in the seat itself. And so growing up, as I guess my intro kind of included, my father was in entrepreneurship, but not in the type of entrepreneurship that I think most people here have exposure to. He was basically a contractor. So he kind of ran his own small business for a period of time. And so the idea of the tech world was something that kind of felt foreign to me for a very long time. And I started my career actually as a consultant, partially because when I graduated college, you had one of four career choices. There was like, become a consultant, become a doctor, become an investment banker. And then weirdly enough, Teach for America was like very popular at the time. And when I think about like that slate of options, consulting made the most sense. It was an opportunity to develop some level of business acumen. And I wanted to be closer to where a lot of things were happening. And so that sponsored or catalyzed a move to San Francisco. And it wasn't until I was in San Francisco that I even discovered what venture capitalist was. Or that there was an entire capitalistic structure that was kind of sponsoring the growth of all of these incredible tech companies that I had some exposure to, but I didn't really know or understand what was working behind the scenes. So the short answer to your question was absolutely not. It was something that I kind of stumbled into.

No, that's, that's so fair. It's not like your average kids, like, this is what I want to be when I grow up. Like, not a firefighter, not a ballerina.

Actually, it was a graphic novelist at one point. I wanted to, like, write. Comic books and do art. And so when I think about like the fork in a road that kind of sponsored the rest of my life, it was a dramatic left.

Yeah, I don't think Harvard, where you went for undergrad, has graphic design as a major.

They actually didn't accept me. There was like, there's like a visual and environmental studies major, which is basically their very glorified way of describing art. But that shit was highly suspicious.

OK, every hero has a good rejection story.

I like this.

I like this. So you did consulting because you hated your life for a few years, and then you just decided to join Forerunner, which many of us do know as the iconic firm that really invented consumer investing, in my humble opinion. Um, tell us about the decision to join Forerunner.

Yeah, um, well, it was remarkably easy. I think, um, at the time that I was leaving consulting, um, there were a few things that I wanted to optimize for in pursuit of like my next gig. And again, this is like me learning what venture capital— capitalism was for the first time. But the things that I wanted to over-rotate on were, one, I wanted to basically belong to an organization that didn't feel like everything else that I was exposed to at the time, which for the most part was old white males. I wanted an organization that felt different, looked different, and thought differently. And so wanted to really index on that opportunity as a next step. The second bit is, as I was starting to understand venture capital, I think one of the things that drew me to that exercise was the idea of investing and partnering with founders at the earliest of stages. And to me, that felt like a significant enough departure from consulting, where oftentimes you're working with, like, the Fortune 100, Fortune 500 companies, whose problems candidly just weren't that intellectually interesting. The third thing was I wanted something that really tapped into the psychology of people. To the extent that I could help service folks as they were thinking about the human condition or what it meant to, I guess, navigate up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The idea of serving people was something that felt really captivating. And so when I kind of combined all of those elements or attributes together in looking at the world of venture capitalism, Foreigner was like very much at the top of that list, which at the time was a fund. That was very early, and all women, and doing incredible things in the context of consumer. And so it became more or less an obvious choice.

When did you first meet Kirsten Green?

Yeah, it was, I think it was like my second interview. I guess I had to work my way up to like get behind like the gold-plated doors that behind it was the fabulous Kirsten Green. Yeah, it was kind of incredible because it's not very often that I get starstruck, and it's hard to say that any venture capitalist is a celebrity because I feel like that's just off. But Kirsten's different. So one, she's the most generous person with regards to time and resources. Like, you can feel that energy in the moment that you meet her. And then two, she's kind of a walking TED Talk. Where I felt like every 30 seconds I had to write something down because it was the pithiest, most like salient point that I've ever heard in my life. And that was like every conversation for like 6 years straight, which is like a really impressive feat. And so, yeah, she just kind of— she very much comes across as incredible as she does in like podcasts, videos that you might catch her on, but also in the investments that she makes. She's like a truly incredible person.

We can tell this is genuine. We interview a lot of people, so I can tell you that that was a genuine reaction right there, you guys. Okay, just tell us a little bit about like maybe an iconic live deal that you saw maybe in your first year where you were just like, wow, this, this is sick.

Yeah, it's a good question. Um, yeah, so the very first deal actually that I worked on was this business, or is this business, is still alive today by the name of Alchemy 43, which operates in kind of like the medical aesthetic space. Um, and this was back at the top of 2017. And so what was particularly interesting about this deal was that it very much was like an interesting foray into the world of venture capitalism, particularly with the consumer mindset. It was one of those first instances in which you get to employ, I guess, somewhat of an anthropological study into like the hearts and minds of consumers. Because at the time, men's spa— well, men's spas are kind of more popular today than they were before, but at the time it wasn't right. And so you were really making a bet against where was the zeitgeist going? Not something that felt 10 years off, but maybe 3 to 5 years. That sweet spot felt important. The work that it took to kind of gain or develop conviction in the context of an opportunity that was a little bit ahead of its time is a very interesting exercise. It being my first deal that I worked on actually kind of created an interesting framework to evaluate all the deals that kind of fell thereafter. It was just very interesting to note that it was in the context of Juvederm and Botox and all these things that I'm not personally a customer, but the exercise around learning what it means to be a customer and why someone might be intrigued or fascinated by that journey was a really fascinating one.

From, you know, LipFiller to Eight Sleep, you definitely touched a variety of companies. We have a lot of consumer founders in the room here from software to brands, and the markets have changed a lot over the past 7 years. So maybe let's orient ourselves around 2017. That was 7 years ago. Really, really crazy. What did deals look like back then? What were average check sizes? How did sort of the market look and how have things changed recently?

Yeah, there's a hell of a lot to unpack there, which is surprising considering like 2017 in some cases doesn't feel like long ago.

It feels like yesterday. It's absurd.

Yeah, it's like that statement almost made me feel old. Yeah, I mean, it's funny, like The characterization of companies that I saw back then feel fundamentally very different today, and I think a lot of it is for the good and a lot of it's for the worse. I mean, I do vividly recall there being a such thing as like a $7 million Series A, and that feels unheard of today. In fact, I just came across a deal that was looking to raise something along the lines of like $45 as like their second institutional round, with like a product that's been in market for maybe about a month or two.

Was it an AI?

It was AI adjacent.

Yeah, yeah, that's nice.

That's nice.

Yeah. Gotcha.

And I think there are a lot of like thematic differences as well because like when you think back to 2017, what were the pioneering iconic companies of that era and why were they indeed pioneering and relevant? And when I think back to that year specifically, I think what was particularly profound was that people, platforms, businesses, technologies were leveraging interesting elements in new ways. More specifically, like social media was like a new thing, kind of. Actually, it was closer to the tail end of that journey by 2017, but what was interesting is that you had entire fleets of companies that were generating enterprise value in the context of being able to do social media different. What was interesting about that was that it was for the first time ever you had an opportunity to get closer to your consumers, have a direct dialogue or conversation with them, and that unlocked an ability to have specialized product insights, be able to tap into interesting acquisition curves, and the whole nine, in a way that was particularly novel during that era. If I were to say that now, people would probably laugh at me because that has become table stakes, increasingly so, right? Today, it's never been easier to spin up a company, put a product out there, engage on social media, and try to generate a following of some sort. But at the time, that was particularly novel, interesting, and additive to a business. So when I think about differences between eras, if you want to describe it as such, it's like they do feel magnificently different.

[Speaker:MADISON MCILWAIN] So from 2017 at Forerunner to now at Google Ventures, you've talked to a lot of founders. There's probably quite a few founders in this room that are thinking about fundraising or just wanting to start to establish connections with some VCs. So tell us, what really jumps out to you as something exciting when you speak to a founder? Like, what are the green flags?

I think 3 immediately come to mind. Number 1 is magnetism. And that's just a phenomenon or a characteristic that describes a person who has an innate ability to attract others. Which I feel is a particularly important skill as a founder because you're called upon to attract a lot of different types of folks, whether it's investors, new teammates, partners. There's a lot of people that you generally need in your orbit in order to be successful. It can't be a solo journey. And so to the extent that you can demonstrate, cultivate your own magnetism, I think that's something that feels particularly important. Number 2 is a deep curiosity. And I say that because some of the best founders I've ever worked with are some of the more, most curious folks. To the extent that they obviously have domain expertise in whatever it is that they're working on, but for whatever reason, they like also experts at some other random thing. And I just find that to be particularly incredible. And I think it's important because as a founder, if you have the privilege of being able to move through the natural life cycles of a business from, start to greener pastures, you're kind of in a position where you have to learn every day and you have to be kind of hungry and thirsty for that opportunity. And what it takes to be successful from year 1 to year 2 is going to look dramatically different. And what sponsors or catalyzes that ability to shift or mold into the person that you need to be as a successful founder tends to be some degree of curiosity. And then I would say that the third and last piece, and this is kind of with my consumer investor hat on, has to be kind of like what people describe as like founder market fit where you have to have some type of unique insight or specialized knowledge base about the audience that you're looking to serve. And the reason I say that in particular is because there's a level of intuition that I think it's helpful particularly at the earlier stages where it just allows you to move thoughtfully but quickly, and it's hard to replicate. Like if you're completely foreign to a market or don't really know your audience, it takes a while for you to earn your stripes, so to speak, and kind of learn what's helpful and what's most practical for the development of your business. If you already come to the table with that outsized knowledge, I do think that that lends itself very well to being advantageous for your business.

I love that, that framework of, you know, doing what you know well, but always evolving and becoming a different founder as your company needs different things. Okay, let's turn it on its head. What are some red flags we should be watching out for with speaking to founders?

This is a space to be honest.

Red flags. What feels not as salacious? So I get worried when founders think that they know it all or can operate in an environment with no risks. If a founder doesn't have at least a small bit of paranoia, I, I, I tend to run away a little bit. Not that I think a fair bit of paranoia is particularly healthy, 'cause I think there are risks endemic to anything you do, and what's important is to not ignore them, but to be acutely aware of them and try to figure out to what extent you can insulate yourself from that. Founders who like, who you ask like, oh, like what's keeping you up at night? Or like, what do you think is foundationally risky about your business? And they say nothing, um, is a very, very scary prospect for me. Um, beyond that, and this feels a little counterintuitive, founders who who don't embrace their weaknesses. I think one of the more compelling things about my job is that I have the ability to back folks who spike in a very particular area, and it's something that I celebrate. In fact, I think some of the more compelling founders are people who do spike in one thing and are absolutely atrocious at some other things. And I rather back the founder that spikes in that way than someone who's kind of like average at everything. But what comes along with that is like your ability to understand what that weakness might be and have the ability to hire or delegate against it in ways that are advantageous for the business. And so having that kind of self-awareness is something that feels really important. And so the lack thereof is something that feels very scary.

Scary. Not leveraging yourself when building a billion-dollar tech business. That does seem like a red flag. As a founder, I've gotten a lot of mixed advice around pitching to investors. I've gotten advice around, "Well, just become friends with them and build a relationship over time and don't lead with a deck." That did work for you. That did.

Yes.

Thank you for being my first check. And then other advice of, you know, you always have to send slides, otherwise it's going to be a waste of time. How have pitches changed over the past 5, 6 years? And what advice would you have for founders when trying to really cultivate a relationship ahead of a fundraising round?

Yeah, I think pitches haven't really evolved that much beyond the fact that I think that venture capitalism as an industry has become increasingly less obscure. In other words, more transparent. And so what that has meant is that I think people are more familiar with the tricks of the trade and the internal workings and dynamics of various partnerships. To the extent that they can come to the table with some knowledge, some know-how on how to guide the conversation to yield the best outcomes. In other words, I think founders are just more trained to know how to handle VCs, which I think is candidly a very good thing. But the pitch itself hasn't really transformed. Obviously what's most important is the ability to very succinctly in a crystal clear fashion articulate what is interesting about you, what is interesting about your idea, and how will this ultimately become a huge significant enterprise of importance and consequence. And there are different mechanisms of doing that. I mean, I think traditionally people have definitely gravitated towards slides, and I think that has become an atomic unit of reference with regards to any type of communication between founders and VCs. Increasingly, I've seen more founders distribute memos, which is basically the atomic unit of reference for venture folks internally when they're communicating with their partnerships. For most firms, not for every. And so what's interesting about that dynamic is that it does a lot to grease the skids with regards to communications externally and internally. Like if a founder were to give me a memo, that clearly articulated everything that was interesting about their business, it actually provides a pretty significant lift for me to communicate that internally and try to gain conviction myself, but also bring the rest of my partnership along the journey. And I've seen that as being a pretty helpful device as of late.

You mentioned founders these days are more trained at driving forward a process, which is awesome, but there's also some really horrific advice out there in the founder community around catalyzing a round in getting your first term sheet. So real talk, this is something I've struggled with as a founder. How can founders drive forward momentum to get the deal done if maybe a fund is taking their time or they're talking to a few and they're interesting but kind of circling the well without being cringe?

Maybe a little bit, but all right. So I think in an ideal world, there is an opportunity to build a relationship. I mean, a lot of my focus tends to hover around earlier stages, and so the idea of relationships in the context of founder to cap table or what have you is particularly important. And to try to figure all of that out with— in the context of an immediate deal just feels tough. It's like shotgunning a wedding in some regards. And so in an ideal world, you would have plenty of time outside the context of fundraising to kind of get to know someone and make sure that you're moving forward from a place of like security, lack of urgency to a certain extent, and comfort. Obviously, that's not a reality in most circumstances, and so you have to figure out how to navigate the court that you're in. I do, and this might be a tepid take, but I do feel that some cringe is helpful. Um, just because I think the best relationships start off from a foundation in which both parties are at least a little bit uncomfortable. If it's overwhelmingly in one side's favor, I don't think that yields the most productive relationship over the long term. If you can kind of create a little bit of discomfort and know on both ends that you really want it, I think that usually engenders like pretty dope outcomes.

So it's like dating is what I'm hearing a little bit.

I wasn't going to say it.

No, I mean, I think it's really helpful to peel back these layers because as Claudia was saying, when you're on either side, you don't want to ask in real time, am I doing well, by the way? Are you into my company? And so taking it out of an initial deal can be so helpful. Once you've decided, hey, this founder is sick. I want to invest in them. And they're pretty leaned in, such as you think they're going to take your term sheet. How do you think about going to your partnership? Because in my experience, some of the hardest parts is bringing along that team for the journey and getting to that yes of pounding the table. There's almost this like second turn of convincing your GPs that we should do this deal.

Yeah. Yeah, it's, I mean, it's an interesting story, right? Like half the battle is bringing along your partnership for this journey and people have different techniques of what's been successful and candidly different partnerships operate differently. Some are more conviction driven. So like as much as you can pound the table, it's helpful because that's what pushes the deal through. Others are more consensus driven and so you really have to get a number number of folks kind of bought in in order for something to happen. And so a lot of that kind of hinges on the construction of the partnership and what constitutes success in that regard. I can say that GV kind of sits somewhere in the middle.

Yeah.

In which we're not fully consensus-driven. Like if you really want to push a deal forward, there's a mechanism by which you can do so, but it behooves you to kind of try to bring as many people along the journey, just because that ends up creating a really successful environment for a founder to the extent that they have access to not just a singular partner, but the entire group in a way that, you know, might solve for very specific things as they surface, right? Like I may focus on consumer, but have a partner that can be really supportive on the engineering side of things, and that can be helpful for an entrepreneur. But the idea of bringing your partnership is an interesting question. And yeah, it really just depends on the dynamics of that particular partnership and what yields that type of success.

Yeah, that's helpful in kind of framing it around the conviction versus consensus-driven approach and models. And I just think it's helpful for a founder to understand that it's not sometimes about you. Sometimes there's that partnership behind just that individual investor, and it's really that holistic firm at the end of the day that does say yes to investing and working with you. Um, so I guess, you know, we talked about how you were at Forerunner and now you're at GV. A big, big move and a really exciting one. How did you know it was time for you to move to a new fund?

Yeah, I mean, it's a good question. Um, for me, the decision came down to a few different factors, and those factors looked very different for different people. Like, everyone has their own kind of considerations that feed an algorithm that says yes or no with regards to moving funds. For me, a lot of it had to do with being in New York. Um, uh, Forerunners is a San Francisco-based firm, um, and at the time I was kind of in and out of San Francisco, and then I was splitting half of my time in New York, half of my time in California. Um, and it was really increasingly important for me to be in New York. My brothers are here. They're very young. My youngest brother is 15, and I've recognized that most of my life was spent away from him in the context of my career journey in California, college, and a handful of other things. And so over time, it meant a lot to me to be in New York, to be closer to him, as well as to the ecosystem that helped brought me up. Um, and so for me, I wanted to kind of like figure out what set of opportunities exist in New York that would be fun. The connection to GV was a little bit more on the auspicious end in that it wasn't something that I was necessarily anticipating but was a really welcomed experience. And yeah, that's kind of like what kind of led to me catalyzing a shift, notwithstanding the fact that I was at Forerunner for about 6 ish years, which is forever by millennial standards. And I think there was an interest or an appetite to kind of figure out what else was out there in the world and a willingness to kind of explore a little bit. And what was particularly profound was that I had the support and the backing of like my team and my functionally family at Forerunner for what those next steps could look like.

Incredible. That's so nice that you that you had that internal support, um, and just kind of blessing to get to move on with your career into this new firm and this new role. Um, and as an investor, you've likely sat around the table with a lot of different investors, either at your firms or in a boardroom. It could be maybe a Midas List winner, right? Like, these are kind of big deal people. Um, you've observed from these boards, what are some board traits that you've internalized and taken on to be a part of your board member mentality? I know you have a board later today, so board meeting later today.

Yeah, how timely. Yeah, I would say that my answer to that is twofold. One that sounds kind of trite, and that is I think there's a— there should be huge emphasis on building trust and listening. I think there's a little bit of an inverse correlation or relationship between the amount of words spoken in a board meeting and the level of impact that is delivered. Where some of the more, I would say, captivating board members are the ones that say the least, but what they do say is actually pretty profound. I think founders appreciate it. I think other board members appreciate it. I do think there's something about just creating trust and creating an environment where you can have candid, transparent conversations, and it's not built on the idea of speaking just to speak. Um, the second part of that answer has to do with, um, I think what should be the largest superpower of any VC, and that's the idea of synthesis, which essentially describes a phenomenon in which you're able to compile a lot of data from disparate sources in order to understand or recognize some truth. I think the lazy part of that is pattern recognition, which is just like recycling old thoughts. I, um, I do think that the leverage that a VC can offer or should offer has a lot to do with just having exposure to a lot of different things and then being able to compile that in an interesting way that yields benefit to a particular business or founder What are some conversations that you think founders and board members don't have enough?

I think there's a lot of also split opinion around like, when is the right time for a founder to put together a board? Is it at the seed? Is it at the A? But yeah, like what conversations do you feel like board members and founders need to be more open about?

That's a good question. This is mostly my take, but like, there are two things that I overemphasize in the context of most of my board conversations. One, I don't like surprises, and two, how is your health? With one, I think if I'm being delivered new news, whether bad or good, in the context of board meeting, there's a chance that it might be too late. Like I would almost overemphasize open transparency and communication, even in places or times where it feels uncomfortable. Like I'd much rather get a 2 AM text and be able to respond in real time than to wait 6 months down the line when something becomes a much larger issue than it should be. And so by a board meeting, hopefully there is enough dialogue, enough open communication ahead of that where like, I'm not really surprised by anything that's shared in the context of the board meeting, and we can use that time to be as strategic as humanly possible. And so I think just having a line or lane of communication I think is important. With regards to just like the health piece, I think being a founder is really fucking hard, and I don't think enough stock is given to the quality of life that in some cases is compromised in the pursuit of some dream or vision. And I do think that healthy people do great things. And I think it's very easy, particularly within the ecosystem to which we all belong, to kind of sacrifice pretty important things in the pursuit of your dream. And so one of the first few questions that I usually ask any of my boards is like, yo, are you sleeping? And if not, like, what can we do to course correct?

Can I buy you an Oura Ring? If you're not sleeping.

Yeah, I happen to know an interesting team that I can help with that. And I think that's a conversation that should be surfaced entirely more frequently than it is.

Being a founder is in many ways like being a professional athlete. You know, you got to— it's marathon, not a sprint. Well, we've spoken a lot about advice for funders as well as founders, but let's look forward a little bit. KJ, tell us about a deal you've recently you looked at that has truly blown you away? Hmm.

So many. Let's see. I can think of a few. One I can't name at the moment, but it sits at the intersection of content distribution and of course, the buzzword AI. And what was particularly interesting about this business is that it fits very much within this thesis that I hold. Around niche communities and kind of more verticalized social networks. What I mean by that more specifically is that I think a lot of people tend to either gravitate toward the mean or identify where there's the largest addressable market, which I think makes sense, but I also think that that can be a miss in that what you find is that sometimes smaller communities aren't actually that small and can demonstrate a really strong connective tissue with other members of that community. And so this company in particular engages with a very specific style of content, specifically comics, manga, manhwa, and a bunch of other types of digital forms of art. And what's interesting is that it immediately comes across as being kind of nerdy, kind of weird, kind of obtuse, kind of in the fringe. But then you realize how many people actually engage with this content, and you recognize that, like, Holy shit, this is actually a pretty sizable market. And you have companies like, I don't know, Webtoons that just IPOs for about like $2.6 billion, if I'm gonna get that figure right. And what's interesting is that you're bringing people around a particular utility, right? Where it's just not being social for the sake of being social, and it doesn't feel like a bolt-on or an add-on to an existing business. It's more like, no, this undergirds and provides the fabric of an opportunity, and people are motivated and enthusiastic about participating, engaging, and interacting with other folks, um, and doing so in a more verticalized context versus, uh, spreading yourself too thin around a bunch of different use cases or a bunch of different service groups. And so things like that continue to be really exciting, and I've seen a handful of companies, um, more recently that kind of engage in that way that have been really enriching to see. There's a company that I just mentioned, there's another company called, um, Lucky Sweater that engages in kind of like the re-commerce space, and the founders there are just absolutely excellent.

Um, so yeah, those are some fun ones. Uh, and I love that throughput of your graphic design ambitions earlier in your life, and now perhaps there's an investment on the horizon that touches on that space yet again. It's fun to see those parallels come back in careers. Um, okay, just more broadly, taking a step back at the venture ecosystem level, you're kind of our main VC on stage here today. And we're kind of curious how you're seeing the macro headwinds impact some of the younger funds in the ecosystem, maybe at Fund 1, Fund 2, where they're starting to hit some headwinds on re-upping with their LP base. You have a single GP at Google Ventures, Google, or maybe it's personally Sergey. I don't know how that works. But just tell us a little bit about what you're thinking you're seeing is going to be the impact on these ghost funds, um, in, in kind of the next coming years?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's fair to say that it's a kind of a tough market for folks, and I have like the deepest sympathies for funds that are challenged or struggling to raise their second, third, fourth fund, um, in the same way that I have the deepest empathies for founders, because ultimately raising a fund and building that ecosystem around yourself is kind of similar to being a founder yourself. I do think that venture capital functions the best as almost a cottage industry in which the ecosystem is just less flush with cash. And I think when there's too much money going to far few good companies, it starts to create a weird set of cascading impacts where there's increased competitiveness, which means that there's less discipline. You start seeing like more outrageous fund sizes, but also capital raises. Things just get very weird over time. And I'm not sure if we have the economic foundation to support that. Particularly in an environment where public outcomes are just not what they used to be. And so like it ends up being this weird environment that makes it hard to do business in what feels like the most productive way. And so I do feel like there will be a little bit of a refresh to some extent within the ecosystem. It's hard to say when that will happen fully, but it seems as though we're kind of coming up against some early signals.

Well, KJ, thank you for giving us a little bit of a take on what you're seeing coming down the pipe in the future. I know we chatted about a lot of different things and you've been sitting for a little bit, so we're gonna wrap up with our hero question, which is the question that we ask all of our guests on the podcast. And we ask that the answer not be a mom because in reality the answer is always mom, but who is a woman that has has had a profound impact on your life and your career? Huh.

Um, can't be my mom. Does my stepmom count? No. Um, oh, um, her name is— so one is funny because like Foreigner, as I mentioned, was like an all-female fund when I joined and fucked up that ratio. Um, and so there's no shortage of really incredible women in my life that have influenced me immeasurably, but the one that immediately comes to mind is actually a woman by the name of Victoria Kiznashenko, who was my high school math teacher. And the reason why she has such a profound impact in my life is because she was one of the first people outside of my family, of course, to challenge me to do more and give any sense of confidence in myself that I was capable of more. And I credit— not that I consider myself a particularly successful person, but any wins that I accumulate over time, I tend to credit to her as a result.

Well, I hope we all had Victorias, and thank you so much for sharing your story, KJ. Give some really awesome advice for the founders and funders in the room. We've loved having you on, and we're excited that you've kicked off Inside Summit for us today.

Thank you so much.