246. Agglomerators vs. Specialists, the Rise of the Solo-Capitalist, and the Importance of Founder-Investor Fit (Nikhil Basu Trivedi)

This episode is brought to you by Ramp, the spend management platform we use here at TFR. They're offering listeners $150 just to take a demo. We've never had an offer quite like this. Claim your $150 before this offer is gone at our partner link ramp.com partners tfr. Now onto the episode.

Welcome to the podcast about venture capital, where investors and founders alike can learn how VCs make decisions and reach conv. Your host is Nick Moran and this is the full ratchet.

Nikhil Basu Trivedi joins us today from San Francisco. He's been a solo venture capitalist for the past couple months and writes essays for his popular newsletter, the Next Big Thing. Prior to going solo, he was a managing director and general partner at Shasta Ventures, leading early stage investments. Nikhil, welcome to the show.

Thanks, Nick, so much for having me.

Yeah, tell us about your background. You know, what was your path to tech and venture?

Yeah, so I grew up in the UK and my family moved to the Bay Area when I was 13 in eighth grade. And when I moved out here, I got to learn about entrepreneurship and Silicon Valley and technology and it just blew my mind. So when I was in high school, I got to take cs and then when I went to college, from day one, I was working on one startup project after another. And after one of those startups started to work and when we were raising, trying to raise venture capital dollars, the light bulb went off for me that at some point I would love to be on the other side of the table and to get to try this investing thing. And that's what led me to join Insight Partners in New York, first as an intern and then full time. And then in 2012, I came out here back to the Bay Area to join Shasta Ventures. And so that's been my path into this.

Got it. Got it. And tell us more about sort of your early experience. You know, as a vc. Did you have focus areas? Did you have specialties in the early days?

Yeah, I'd worked on a consumer marketplace business during college called Artsy. And so and you know, the area that I had the most comfort with when I joined Shasta was in consumer technology businesses. But I really looked across the spectrum during my time at Shasta and ended up making several investments in enterprise companies as well that look and behave more like consumer businesses. So think of me as focused on consumer and enterprise with a consumer bend. But broadly speaking, I have a lot of interests and that's hopefully reflected in, in the Next Big Thing. And what I write about as well.

Awesome. So why the decision to leave Shasta?

You know, Shasta was a great chapter for me. It was a great almost eight year journey. And I feel really grateful to my partners for giving me the rope to increase in responsibility and to go from associate to general partner. But it was time for a new chapter. The firm is going in a different direction moving forward. And I want to work with people who I'm aligned with on principles and values in this next phase. And it just felt like it was now or never for me to go make that move. Because as you know, the timeline in our roles in venture are really, really long. You make 10, 20 year decisions, hopefully if you get them right, I suppose every time you sign up for a new fund and for a new firm. And so that's really what drove the decision to leave. And I tried to lay a bunch of that out in a post called An Ending and fallow time from July 1st.

Very good. So I know you're in this transitional time, but if you had to guess what sort of startups, what stage, you know, what categories will you be focusing on moving forward?

Yeah, there's three broad set of criteria for every investment that I like to make. And I think if you look at my track record from Shasta, most investments fit these three criteria. The first is a company that has early signs of product market fit, early signs of customer love. You know, I struggle to invest pre product, pre anything. And so usually I like to see a product and see that there's something there that's resonating with customers. And so that's criteria number one. The second is potential for a decades long customer relationship. I just love investing in businesses where I can foresee a consumer or an enterprise using that product for many, many years. And then the third pillar of every investment of mine is mission driven founders, who I believe, and more importantly they believe are working on their life's work. And so what I hope you'll see from me going forward is investments that fit those three criteria. And from a stage perspective, I think that'll translate into some seed, some series A maybe some rounds in between seed and a maybe the occasional later stage investment as well. And from a sector perspective, a combination of consumer technology as well as focus on the intersection of consumer and enterprise.

Very good, very good. You wrote this article, the rise of solo capitalists. Is it too early to say are you going to be a solo capitalist moving forward or is that still tbd?

Yeah, well, it's still tbd. I the word or the phrase solo capitalist seems to have resonated quite a bit. And so I'm happy about that and excited particularly for the solo capitalists out there who I think I probably helped through coining that term. I think it's a fascinating trend. And what I did in March was I wrote a long memo for myself around changes that are happening in the venture industry. One of those sections of the memo was on the bifurcation of the industry into agglomerators and specialists. Another section of the memo was about the rise of solo capitalists. Another section was about founder investor fit and then sort of a blueprint around the dream type of firm that I'd want to work on moving forward. And so I've turned a number of those sections of the memo now into blog posts. And it was really the solo capitalist piece was again a reflection on a current trend in the industry and me thinking through it as part of my thinking about what's next.

Yeah, very good. It seems like it's a more attractive and accepted thing now than it used to be. I remember when I was raising fund one, I can't tell you how many institutions said, oh yeah, we don't do any single gp, right? And now that we're prepping for the next fund and just getting people's input on that, I'm hearing from a lot of folks that no problem with single gps. I was talking to Low Tony yesterday and he said single gps are great. There's no conflicts, downstream conflicts. I don't think low is against multiple gp, but it seems like folks, at least in the LP community are much more open minded and even endorsing these solo capitalists and single GP funds.

Yeah, I think you're right. And of course there have been single GP funds for a long time. What I wrote about in the piece is this classification of folks like Chris Sacca and Steve Anderson and Michael Dearing and others as super angels happened about a decade ago. But what's I think unique about what's happening today, and this is what I tried to define as solo capitalists, is these are folks who are able to write much bigger checks and make bigger investments as sole GPS. They're raising $50 million funds, $100 million funds, and they're leading series A rounds. They're sometimes leading series B and C rounds as well. And they are just themselves with the much larger fund than what the super angels or most single gps had in the past.

What do you think has caused the rise of the solo capitalists?

I think increasingly entrepreneurs are Picking investor partners based on the individual. And we've seen that happen even in traditional fundraisers with traditional firms, founders gravitating towards an individual partner at a firm and deciding to take a term sheet as a result of a relationship with that individual partner and wanting that partner to be on their board, wanting that partner to be in their corner for this next phase of the business. And so I think that's one of the reasons for this shift. I think another is platforms like Angellist, products like scalp funds, enabling more and more people to get access to being individual investors themselves, not just with their own capital, as the traditional angel investors of years past, but with other people's capital. It's helped to democratize the investing landscape and, and enable a lot of people to think about being sole GPS and solo capitalists. And then I think finally, as you pointed out with your conversation with Low Tony, I think traditional LPs are finding themselves more and more amenable to backing sole GPS not just with the $10 million fund, but with a $50 million fund with $100 million fund, because they've seen the, the sort of founder investor fit between founders and solo capitalists. Another comment from an LP that I received after the piece is that they really like the sole GP model because they can properly understand someone's track record from knowing if that's the only person in the firm. They've definitely made all of the investments in that fund. Whereas it's very challenging often with funds and how they obfuscate things like attribution to know who really did the work to lead to a certain investment.

Such a good point. There's so many dynamics when you have large firms with multiple partners. And lots of things can happen with investments in different situations. And there's lack of clarity on who not only selected the deal, but who helped it get to the next level. Do you think this is a net benefit to entrepreneurs, the solo gp?

I think it is because it's another source of capital and it's another option for founders. And one of the advantages of solo capitalists is their potential to make an investment decision at an even greater speed than a firm. If you don't have to talk to any of your partners because you don't have partners to write a $6 million check as part of an $8 million Series A round, it can be an incredibly fast decision making process. It also means you know exactly what you're getting into. From a relationship standpoint, it's with that one person and there's no one else in the firm to sort of have to get to know and have to deal with post investment. And so I think there are a number of potential benefits to founders of the solo capitalist model and of working with these individuals. But of course, there are downsides, too. You don't get the benefit of perhaps a broader set of perspectives at the table. It's still unclear what reserves, allocations and what follow on rounds and other downstream decisions will be of the solo capitalists. Let's see how that unfolds.

Yeah, you wrote that an LP said to you that this model may be the biggest threat to traditional venture capital firms that they've seen in a long time. Why do you think that's the case?

Yeah, this is from one of the sharpest LPs that I've gotten to know over the years. And the point that he made is that he's already seeing how a few of these individuals, such as Elad Gill, Ray Tansing, Lockheed Groom, Josh Buckley, Meenal Hassan, Aron Zev, are out competing some of the best funds to lead Series A rounds. And that's just a unique sort of shift that's happened over the last year. And a lot of LPs think about competition. And for those companies where several Tier one venture firms are competing, who gets to win the right to invest? And we've started to see a few of these individuals out compete firms such as Sequoia and Benchmark and Lightspeed and Andreessen Horowitz and others at the Series A. And so that was his perspective on why this could be a huge threat.

Yeah, I think it would be interesting if there was a way to run a study with founders. Would you rather have one of these names absent the firm if they were on their own, versus would you rather have the firm a different partner, maybe somebody who has not built their status or their personal individual brand to that level?

I think, yeah, you're exactly right. That would be a fascinating study. And it's. And it speaks to another piece that I wrote around founder investor fit, which is this concept that, you know, certain types of founders gravitate to certain types of investors. And as an investor, you can't be everything to every founder. As a partnership, perhaps you have a bigger surface area to be more things to more founders. But there's certainly evidence right now of founder investor fit between certain types of founders and certain solo capitalists.

Yeah. So we actually haven't talked about founder investor fit on the show since 2015. It's been a long time. Give us a sense for what do you think founders should be vetting and evaluating when selecting their investors?

Yeah, I mean I think there's lots of dimensions for founders to think about. This is a long term partnership. It's an irreversible decision. It's extraordinarily hard to fire your investor to get them off your cap table once you have them. And so I do think it's a very important thing for founders to think about. And as you know that there's several dimensions of that relationship. There's how often you chat with your investor and how you engage with them and what they are going to help you with and what they won't be helpful with. And so if you're a first time founder, for instance, who wants an investor who's more actively engaged and who's going to be the first call in good and bad times, who's going to be accessible 24, 7 to you, I think you're best suited working with a certain type of investor who's going to deliver on those things versus and again, I'm making broad generalizations but perhaps if you're a third type founder who's built several billion dollar businesses already, perhaps you don't want that level of engagement from your investor and therefore you gravitate towards a very different type of investor. And so I don't know if that's helpful, but that's some of how I think about it.

No, it makes a lot of sense. I mean as I look across our own portfolio, almost nearly 30 companies, the small number of founders that are serial entrepreneurs located in the valley, we haven't been able to help much. That's not like those are great businesses, don't get me wrong. But we haven't had an opportunity to really build a relationship and help those folks out because a lot of the things that we can bring to a founder in say Omaha, Nebraska that's a first timer are completely different than what we can bring to somebody on the coast. So it's this is such an under assessed characteristic I think is how important this fit is. And I know there's many venture firms out there that just don't care about fit per se. They just want to get money and the best deals. And it can be tough for the founders to turn down really great offers from really big name investors. I'm curious to hear, do you think that a lack of founder investor fit can lead to the demise of a company?

I do. There's plenty of public examples of companies that have, you know, gone through hard times and not made it through those and I think when in particular when times get rough, it puts pressure on that relationship between founders and investors. And if you aren't aligned on a certain set of principles, if you haven't built the level of trust in the relationship to make a high quality decision in those tough times, bad decisions can get made. And so I do think it's really important. And one of the things that I wrestle with is the speed of financings today has increased so dramatically from when I started in the venture business that it's compressed the time to understand that founder investor fit on both sides. And so we'll see how this plays out 10 years from now. But I do have a worry in the part of my brain about a number of the founder investor relationships that have been consummated through financings in the recent past, when there's just barely been any time for each side to get to know one another. Well enough.

Yeah, I mean, that brings up another good point. I mean, we've seen the supply side of capital increase so significantly, particularly in the Bay Area. And many of that, those firms at least are at the seed stage or at the early stages. So of course, with capital supply increasing, we've seen prices go up, we've seen time to decision go down, we've seen a lot of competition around Rounds. I'm seeing some strange things that I haven't seen since I first began in the industry. How do you see that playing out and how does that affect sort of maybe your next step as a vc?

Well, I think these things happen in cycles. And so let's pick on an example that was strange from recent past. If you remember Finix, for instance, which took money from Sequoia Capital and then I'm not even sure what ended up happening. But Sequoia is no longer an investor in Finix and I think it was determined there was a conflict with Sequoia's investment in Stripe.

That's right.

That's an example. I had never seen that before. I heard about this happening and I do think again, I'm crossing the net and reading between the lines. But a part of that could have been the speed at which it just went down. I think as we have public stories like that, there'll be some pausing of the gas pedal on both the founder side and the investor side during these incredibly important decisions. And so I do hope we see some cyclicality here and some correction. But the flip side of this which you brought up is there is more capital than ever before. It doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. And if you purely think about things as a function of supply and demand, it becomes harder to make the argument that the speed of decision making and the speed of these rounds going down is going to drop anytime soon. So that's some of how I think about it as it relates to my next step. I continue to believe that there are ways to stand out in our business and there are ways for me to be successful and to have an arbitrage opportunity and to deliver outsized returns. Otherwise I wouldn't be wanting to do this for the next 20 plus years.

You got to find the ARB. That's right. I think we were both maybe on a call with Josh Koppelman earlier this week.

That's right. He was schooling.

Yeah, yeah, schooling us all and finding our own arb and differentiation. So, Nikhil, I want to talk a bit about the article that you wrote, Agglomerators versus Specialists. You know, this was. It kind of sort of went viral and feels like every emerging GP I talk to kind of it comes up in discussion. But for, you know, the minority of folks in the audience that didn't get a chance to see the article. Can you just give us a, a brief breakdown of the types of focus amongst VCs, these agglomerators versus the specialists?

Yeah, this ties in nicely to what we were just talking about. There's a lot of capital out there and there are a lot of different types of firms out there. And I've increasingly noticed, as many others have, that there's this bifurcation of firms into the agglomerators on the one side, which are multi stage and multi sector focused firms and specialists on the other side that are either specialists by stage or by sector or by both. And that's just how I think about where we are as an industry right now. And I tried to lay out that bifurcation in this piece and there's a graph if you go to it, or a chart that lays out some examples of firms on these different axes. Right, right.

What do you think has caused this rise in the agglomerators, the A16Zs and sequoias of the world?

Yeah, I mean, look, first of all, several of these firms started off as specialists but have become agglomerators over time. And they've had the license to become agglomerators by raising bigger and bigger funds, by increasing the scope and sizes of their teams. They've had the license to do these things because they've delivered for LPs because they've built strong brands in the market, because they've been able to hire talented people to run a crypto fund as well as a bio fund as well as a regular main technology fund. And so I think it's important to call out that it's hard for firms to start off as an agglomerator, but you can get the license as a firm to get there over time with some level of success. And so that's one of the reasons that this has happened. I think another is these firms have recognized that they have an opportunity with their brand, with what they built to go be successful as a growth stage investor if they're in early stage investing today. And you know, I think each firm in this bucket probably has slightly different reasons for having gone in the agglomerator direction. But the final piece of this equation is of course Also on the LP side, which is LPs have been willing and excited to double and triple down on these firms to give them more and more capital over time for more different types of funds as well as perhaps the main fund that they started off in. And so that's another reason for their rise.

Well, in some cases I've witnessed or observed these firms that are collections of specialists, right? They have partners that are specialists either at stage, at sector category or both. So there are these. I come from, or at least my background was working at a conglomerate and the conglomerate leveraged certain economies of scale and economies of scope and some shared services at the parent level. But it was a collection of subsidiaries that had no interaction with each other. And some of these firms actually feel that way to me. They have these silos. But it's dangerous. It's dangerous anytime you get too big and you lose focus or you lose your arb at the individual level where you can really succeed and win.

Well, you're absolutely right. And we've seen this movie before in the venture industry, which is also what I think is fascinating about this moment in time. If you go back about 20 years, Benchmark Capital, one of the best specialist firms at the early stage of the series A and B today at one moment in time had an Israel fund, had a Europe fund increased in fund size, and today they are just one fund, early stage focused in the US with a team based in the Bay Area. You're absolutely right that I think we will see some agglomerators retreat and become specialists again. And I pointed that out in the post. Another recent example of this is Kleiner Perkins, more recent example than Benchmark. But it also feels like a bunch of these agglomerator firms are here to stay and may even become in a whole category of their own. Super agglomerators, as I call them, such as Sequoia Capital.

Yeah, we're. We just had Trey Vasallo from Defy on the program and she was talking about her departure from Kleiner and they're kind of changing the firm substantially from being very big and diversified to much smaller and more focused. Are you still managing expenses with outdated apps and spreadsheets? If so, it's time for Ramp, the leading US spend management platform covering corporate cards, travel, AP and more, all built to save time and extend Runway. We use Ramp at TFR and it's been a game changer. As our preferred partner, they're offering listeners $150 just to take a demo. No need to sign up. Head to ramp.com partners TFR to claim your $150 before the offer expires. Now back to the interview. What do you think about the agglomerators, or at least maybe the mid to late stage firms that are also dabbling with these option checks, you know, at the seed stages, you know, throwing in anywhere from 50k to a few hundredk into early rounds?

You know, as someone who has been a sector stage, sorry, a stage specialist at Shasta at the early stage, I'm of course biased on this point.

But.

Even working with companies where there are multiple larger funds on the cap table with small dollar amounts, it's very rare those firms are involved in the building of the business in a meaningful way. It's typically a couple of intentioned higher ownership investors who are the ones who serve on the board of the company or are truly in the founder's corner. The first call, the second call for key decisions. And so just from a founder standpoint, I think maximizing the sort of intentionality of a small group of high quality investors is the preferred direction, at least that that I would have as a founder. Again, there's others that think differently and want different things in their investors, but that's what would matter to me.

Yeah, it's interesting. We do a lot of pre seed and early seed deals and often we lead because it's very early. And what that means is typically there's not coastal presence. Right. But on occasion the founder gets a network connection or there's a 50k check that's thrown in, but a large fund and Sometimes we run SPVs for our investments on Angellist because that's kind of where we got Our start. And it's amazing to see what happens with the herd, you know, the large group of accrediteds and whatnot, when there's a logo involved. And even the Angelus fund of funds, if there's a logo involved, however small, could be 10k, 25k, 50k. If there is a big logo involved, it is like a feeding frenzy.

Which is a very good point. Yeah. And it does speak to the benefit of having a bigger fund, an agglomerate of fund with a bigger brand perhaps than the average specialist fund on your cap table, which is it can drive more fundraising at the early stage. It can be a good signal, but signaling is complicated. It can also become a negative signal over time. That bigger fund is not leading a series A or a series B, but is on the cap table already. That could cause some questions at later round. So I think there's double edged swords on this point.

Agreed. Nikhil, I was speaking with a large institutional LP this week and he said to me that he doesn't believe that sector focused fund models will produce outsized returns. He he thinks that they underperform and he even suggested that the data shows that these specialist sector category specialists underperform. Have you found or have you seen data that suggests that the generalists are outperforming the specialists?

I've not explicitly looked at this data but what I will say is that there are several sector specialists that have delivered phenomenal returns in the last decade. Look at Ribbit Capital for instance in Fintech, which is a sector focused, now multi stage focused firm in financial technology. And they've done a really impressive job for their LPs. And so I think it's hard to make generalizations in the venture industry because there's so many different ways to be successful in our business. And it's been proven for so many years now that there's lots of ways to succeed and there's lots of ways to fail. And I think the most important thing for a firm is to figure out what is authentic to them as a partnership, what are their unfair advantages and competitive advantages on the sort of buying, decide, win, help exit axes of the venture capital flowchart and to go execute against those things as part of their strategy.

What are your thoughts on rolling funds and how those might play in with the dynamics that we've been discussing?

Really fascinating model. And the rolling fund, for those who haven't heard about it, is a product by Angellist that enables limited partners to commit to venture funds on a rolling basis, on a quarterly basis, enables GPs of those funds to access capital on a quarterly basis. And it's breaking the traditional fund model, which is you raise a bunch of capital, you have that for a two, three, four year investment period and then you do capital calls with the set of institutional LPs to make investments. This is just a very different model. One of the things that I think is fascinating about it from a wonky standpoint is just how it's going to change some of the math around venture capital. The way IRR gets calculated is just going to be very different. It's a bit unclear to me exactly how follow on decisions are going to happen and how some of the stuff around pro rata is going to happen with the rolling fund model because it's very hard to predict timing of these things. As you know, in a traditional fund cycle, with a rolling fund cycle, you suddenly have this capital on a regularly timed basis. And so it's really interesting to me. I think stepping back, what is exciting about rolling funds is it's democratizing access to investing in venture capital, fund managers or a broader set of LPs. And so I view that as a real positive that more people can access the asset class as LPs. And it's also my bet is going to enable a bunch of people who would struggle to otherwise raise a traditional institutional venture fund to now raise a rolling fund and to stop making investments. And so I think it's democratizing access on both sides, which is. Which is exciting.

Yeah. A lot of people thought when AngelList launched syndicates a number of years ago, a lot of people projected this is going to be the most disruptive thing that's happened to venture. And prognosticated about that. And I think a few years later a lot of people are saying, well, that never really happened. I mean, it's been good, it's been interesting. Do you think the rolling fund product or approach is more or less disruptive than the syndicates that Angellist launched?

It's a great question. I think it's probably equally as disruptive, which means it's not going to be massively disruptive to the traditional fundraising landscape. I think for those folks who can access institutional LP capital, there's still lots of benefits to the traditional model versus the rolling fund. And I find it hard right now, with all the information in front of me to foresee the next couple hundred million dollar, the next first round capital, incredibly high quality partnership being built on the back of raising the entire fund and rolling funds. I think it's very hard to envision that. But could it get someone a start that enables them to be the next Josh Koppelman to start the next first round? I think absolutely. And that's what makes it really interesting and similar as well to syndicates where, you know, folks like you have gotten their start and it's enabled them to grow their business.

Really good point. I didn't think about it that way. But in terms of it being a method for developing your MVVP as a GP. Right. Certainly the SPV model, the syndicate model was our mvp and then our fund one was, you could call it proof of concept. And we think our next fund will be more product market fit. But yeah, definitely a great way for people to get started. I can imagine the institutional LPs are going to. There's going to be tricks that's going to be tricky for them because portfolio construction and all that is very tbd.

Yeah, yeah. And I think again, just, just to put a bow on this, you need some kind of a track record as, you know, to end up being an institutional investor who raises capital from institutional investors. And so to me, more ways for people to build a track record, more access to that ability to build a track record is a good thing. And so that's how I view these rolling funds and syndicates as well. And then also things like scout funds that have enabled folks to build a track record.

Nikhil, what resource have you found particularly valuable that you'd recommend to listeners?

I've tried to be a student of the venture industry for the last decade and I've learned so much from different venture capitalists and their blogs. And so folks like fred wilson@avc.com, i'm still stunned that Fred is writing almost every weekday and he's been doing this for so long, but he's still, he's still writing. And I feel like, you know, I still learn something from him on a weekly basis through that writing. And so he's up in that sort of upper echelon of VCs who I found really valuable through their writing and through reading their work over time. But there are a bunch of others in that camp too.

Nikhil, what do you know you need to get better at.

So much. I'm 31, I've been doing this for only about 10 years now. The venture industry is constantly humbling and figuring out how I get better at finding the next great investment. Making investment decisions, winning the right to invest and helping the companies I work with is something I think about every day. And I'm trying to get better on each of those dimensions every day.

Any final words of advice for the founders out there that are trying to get from that early seed stage, maybe MVP to the Series A?

I think the most important thing in that phase is focusing on finding as many signs of product market fit as you can. I think once you've raised a Series A, the transition often becomes how do I build a company and how do I take this product market fit and scale it by hiring a high quality team to execute on it. But in that MVP to Series A stage, I think it's all about finding product market fit. What do you think?

I agree. I think it's very difficult to find product market fit in many cases and I think I've seen entrepreneurs get out in front of their skis with growth before they had real product market fit. And then it's a leaky customer acquisition situation and the stickiness isn't there and the CSAT scores and the NPS aren't quite where they need to be. But yeah, the ones that really nail the product and really find the right beachhead segment, you can throw gas on that fire and it works.

Yeah, it's a really great point.

Good. And then finally, Nikhil, what's the best way for listeners to connect with you?

I'm trying to be more open and more transparent on Twitter bt my initials on my newsletter Next big thing, which is just nbt.substack.com and so I think those are the two places to find me and I always try to be as responsive as I can be and welcome everyone's feedback on my writing.

Well, keep writing. I've had a lot of conversations with folks about some of your recent articles, so I hope you do more of it. I'm going to check out the screenshot Deal Memo article as well and you know, best wishes with everything. It sounds like you've got some great things in the works and I can't wait to see how they play out.

Thanks so much Nick. This has been a really fun conversation.

Awesome. Take care. That will wrap up today's episode. Thanks for joining us here on the show and if you'd like to get involved further, you can join our investment group for free on Angellist. Head over to Angel Co and search for New Stack Ventures there. You can back the syndicate to see our deal flow, see how we choose startups to invest in, and read our thesis on investment in each startup we choose. As always, show notes and links for the interview are@fullratchet.net and until next time, remember to over prepare, choose carefully and invest confidently. Thanks for joining us.